^  PRINCETON,    N.  J.  <Cf> 


Purchased    by  the 
Mrs.    Robert   Lenox    Kennedy  Church   History   Fund. 


BV  670  .C66  1896 
Cooke,  R.  J.  1853-1931. 
The  historic  episcopate 


DR.  COOKE'S  WORKS. 


DOCTRINE  OF  THE  RESURRECTION. 
Historical,  Biblical,  and  Scientific. 

REASONS  FOR  CHURCH  CREED. 

A  Contribution  to  Present-Day  Controversies. 

CHRISTIANITY  AND  CHILDHOOD; 

Or,  The  Relation  of  Children  to  the  Church. 


THE 


HISTORIC  EPISCOPATt 


A  STUDY  OF 


ANGLICAN  CLAIMS  AND  METHODIST  ORDERS 


BY 

R.  J.  COOKE,  D.D. 

Professor  of  Exegktical  and  Historical  Theology 


NEWYORK:   £AT0N  &   MAINS 
CINCINNATI:   CURTS  &    JENNINGS 


Copyright  by 

EATON  &  MAINS. 

1896. 


Eaton  &  Mains  Press, 
ISO  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York. 


TO  THE 

REV.  BISHOP  ISAAC  W.  JOYCE,  D.D.,  LL.D., 

Whose  love  for  historical  studies 

and  sound  learning  is  equaled  only  by  his  apostolic  zeal  in 
caring  for  the  flock  of  Christ,  and  whose  broad  synipathies 
for  all  forces  that  nr^ake  for  righteousness  among  men  is  an 
inspiring  example  to  all  who  would  seek  the  unity  of  the 
Spirit  in  the  bonds  of  peace, 

THIS  VOLUME 

IS  respectfully  inscribed. 


PREFACE. 


AN  historical  paper  by  the  writer  in  the  Methodist 
Review  resulted,  to  his  surprise,  in  a  request 
from  eminent  quarters  that  in  view  of  the  more 
than  academic  interest  awakened  in  the  doctrine  of 
the  historic  episcopate  a  volume  might  be  prepared 
on  that  particular  branch  of  the  general  subject 
treated  of  in  the  article  mentioned.  The  following 
pages  are  a  response  to  that  desire.  The  difficulty 
of  writing  a  book  on  this  important  theme  in  such 
manner  that  it  shall  be  acceptable  to  all  classes  will 
be  appreciated  perhaps  by  those  who  are  acquainted 
with  the  vast  extent  of  ground  to  be  gone  over, 
and  the  many  problems  which  perplex  the  candid 
historian  ;  and  yet  we  may  truly  say  that  no  pains 
have  been  spared  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the 
general  reader,  and,  in  some  degree,  the  more  exact- 
ing demands  of  the  critical  student. 

In  that  part  treating  of  Methodist  orders  we 
have  confined  ourselves  wholly  to  that  phase  of  the 
subject  on  which  special  emphasis  is  placed  by 
Anglicans,  purposely  refraining  from  extended  dis- 
cussion of  some  questions  regarded  as  debatable 
among  us,  and  for  the  adequate  treatment  of  which 
the  future  may  grant  both  facilities  and  time. 


8  PREFACE. 

It  would  have  been  much  easier  to  have  written 
a  larger  work.  And  it  would  have  been  an  easy 
matter  to  have  increased  the  size  of  the  present 
volume  by  inserting  transcripts  of  important  docu- 
ments and  records  relating  to  events  in  the  Eliza- 
bethan period  of  the  Reformation  in  England  re- 
ferred to  in  these  pages  ;  but  condensation  to  the 
utmost  Hmit  was  required,  and  the  results  of  pro- 
longed research  have  sometimes  been  compressed 
into  a  few  lines  or  within  the  limits  of  a  single 
page. 

The  literature  on  the  subject  is  voluminous,  and 
much  assistance  is  given  the  student  to  know  the 
best.  Anglican  critics  no  doubt  will  object  to  some 
authorities  on  whom  we  rely ;  but  if  at  any  time  we 
have  gone  down  to  Ashdod  to  sharpen  our  spears 
among  the  Philistines,  it  is  in  order  that  we  might 
the  more  effectually  cope  with  those  who  are  fight- 
ing the  battles  of  the  Philistines.  There  is  no  reason 
why  we  should  discard  a  fact  because  it  is  found  in 
Lingard,  Raynal,  or  Estcourt,  and  not  in  Burnet, 
Haddan,  Bailey,  or  Bramhall.  What  we  seek  is  the 
truth,  and  while  our  critics  may  doubtless  wish  that 
we  had  limited  our  researches  to  a  certain  class  of 
writers,  it  has  pleased  us  in  our  search  for  the  whole 
truth  to  follow  our  own  judgment  in  pursuit  of  the 
same.  We  have  not  followed  any  authority  blindly, 
however.  Whenever  it  was  possible  for  us,  with  the 
facilities  at  hand,  we  have  carefully  examined  im- 


PREFACE.  9 

portant  data  and  compared  various  views  before 
reaching  a  conclusion. 

Historic  truth  is  not  obtained  by  a  bare  recital  of 
isolated  facts,  however  true  they  may  be  as  actual 
events.  They  must  be  studied  in  their  historic 
setting,  in  the  atmosphere  they  have  created  or  in 
which  they  are  found,  and  he  only  who  can  abandon 
himself  in  spirit  to  the  age  or  to  the  movements  of 
which  he  writes,  without  losing  the  vantage  ground 
of  his  own  time,  can  be  truly  regarded  as  having 
apprehended  the  truth  of  history.  This  principle 
has  determined  us  in  our  study  of  the  subject  be- 
fore us,  and  has  guided  us  in  the  interpre^tion  of 
the  events  with  which  we  have  had  to  deal. 

The  purpose  of  the  volume  is  not  to  dim  the 
glory  of  any  Church.  Its  real  object,  no  matter 
what  its  apparent  aim  may  seem  to  be,  is  to  defend 
the  principles  of  the  Reformation  relative  to  Church 
government,  to  lay  bare  the  grounds  of  Anglican 
claims  to  an  historic  episcopate,  to  set  in  clear  light 
once  more  the  validity  of  Methodist  orders,  and 
thus  by  breaking  down  some  middle  walls  of  parti- 
tion to  contribute  something  to  the  tendency  to- 
ward unity  and  peace  in  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ. 

That  it  may  accomplish  this,  its  true  purpose,  is 

the  earnest  prayer  of  the  author. 

R.  J.  C 

School  of  Theology,  Chattanooga, 
April,  1896. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER    I.  Page 

General  Survey 13 

CHAPTER  n. 
Consecration  of  Matthew  Parker 22 

CHAPTER  HI. 
Founders  of  the  Hierarchy 53 

CHAPTER  IV. 
The  Doctrine  of  Orders  in  the  AngHcan  Ordinal 70 

CHAPTER  V. 
Teachings  of  the  Reformers 88 

CHAPTER  VI. 
Historic  Episcopate  in  the  Church  of  England  a  NulHty.      107 

CHAPTER  VII. 
Methodist  Orders — Outline  Statement 129 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
Ordination  of  Wesley  by  a  Greek  Bishop 139 


12  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER    IX.  Page 

Episcopal  Ordination  of  Dr.  Coke 1 56 

CHAPTER  X. 
The  Authority  of  Wesley 181 

CHAPTER  XL 
Doctrine  of  Necessity — Power  of  the  Church 203 


THE 

Historic  Episcopate. 


CHAPTER  I. 
General  Survey* 

ISOLATED  from  the  Greek  and  Latin  commun- 
ions by  insurmountable  barriers,  and  maintaining 
a  rigid  exclusiveness  toward  Protestant  Churclies, 
the  Established  Church  of  England  and  its  offshoot, 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  hold  a  position 
among  the  Churches  of  Christendom  which  is  as 
unique  as  it  is  untenable.  The  Anglican  Church, 
in  which  term,  for  convenience,  we  include  the 
Church  of  England  and  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  acknowledges  the  claims  of  the  Roman  and 
Greek  Churches  to  apostolical  succession  and  the 
validity  of  the  sacerdotal  character  of  their  min- 
istry. But  neither  of  these  communions,  in  return, 
recognizes  in  any  degree  Anglican  claims  to  the 
succession,  or  regards  as  valid  its  ministerial  orders. 
These  orders  are  rejected  by  those  Churches  as 
spurious,  as  defective  both  in  matter  and  in  form, 


14  THE    HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 

and  the  Church  itself  as  being  without  mission  or 
jurisdiction.* 

The  relation  which  the  Greek  and  the  Latin 
Churches  maintain  on  theological  and  canonical 
grounds  toward  the  Anglican  communion  that 
Church,  singularly  enough,  now  holds  toward  all 
the  Churches  of  the  Reformation.  Protestant 
Churches  generally  admit,  on  evangelical  principles, 
the  sacred  character  of  Anglican  orders,  without 
assenting,  however,  to  the  unhistorical  dogma  of 
apostolical  succession  or  to  the  assumptions  to  a 
priestly  character  of  the  Anglican  ministry.  But 
the  Anglican  Church  rejects  the  orders  of  all  other 
Protestant  Churches,  whether  in  England,  in  Hol- 
land, in  Sweden,  in  Germany,  or  in  this  country, 
and,  forgetting  its  origin,  sets  up  for  itself  the  ex- 
clusive claim,  as  against  them,  of  being  the  one  true 
Church  of  God — as  alone  possessing  a  valid  minis- 
try, and,  therefore,  as  having  the  sole  divine  right  to 
administer  the  Christian  sacraments  according  to 
Christ's  holy  commandment.' 

^  This  was  the  decree  (April,  1704)  of  Clement  XI  in  the  case  of 
the  Anglican  Bishop  Gordon,  who  submitted  to  Rome.  Haddan,  re- 
ferring to  this  instance,  says  :  "Analogous,  but  in  large  part  not  iden- 
tical, difficulties  hinder  the  recognition  of  our  orders  by  the  Eastern 
Church." — Apostolic  Succession  in  the  Chtirch  of  England,  p.  28. 

"^  Bishop  of  Exeter,  Second  IViennial  Charge,  1836,  p,  44  ;  Bishop 
Beveridge,  Works,  vol.  ii,  106,  147,  148,  165,  257  ;  Saravia,  Treatise 
of  the  Different  Degrees  of  the  Christian  Priesthood,  Oxford,  pp.  20, 
21  ;  Hows,  Vindication  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  p.  39  ; 
Palmer,  On  the  Church. 


GENERAL    SURVEY.  1 5 

To  the  student  of  history  it  will  appear  passing 
strange  that  any  Protestant  Church  should  arrogate 
to  itself  such  an  indefensible  distinction.  Never- 
theless, to  the  prejudice  of  other  Churches  and  to 
the  great  injury  of  evangelical  truth  and  Christian 
charity,  this  doctrine  has  recently  been  reaffirmed 
with  all  the  solemnity  that  official  sanction  could 
give. 

In  1886  the  House  of  Bishops  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  laid  down  four  principles  as  a 
condition  of  union  with  other  Protestant  Churches. 
The  Lambeth  Conference  of  English  bishops 
adopted,  two  years  later,  similar  conditions.  The 
fourth  principle  or  condition  of  union  adopted  by 
both  houses  was  the  acceptance  of  the  historic 
episcopate,  by  which  was  signified  a  recognition 
of  the  absolute  necessity  of  lawfully  derived 
episcopal  ordination  to  the  validity  of  ministerial 
functions  in  the  Christian  Church.  Without  this 
ordination  there  can  be  no  true  ministry,  and,  by 
consequence,  no  true  Church  ;  for  where  there  is 
no  true  ministry  there  are  no  true  sacraments, 
and  a  Church  without  sacraments  is  no  Church. 
Now,  acceptance  of  this  dogma  of  the  historic 
episcopate,  which  is  but  another  phrase  for  apos- 
tolical succession,  involves  belief  in  many  dec- 
larations which  are  both  unscriptural  and  unhis- 
torical : 

I.  That    bishops   are  by  divine   right  a  distinct 


l6  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

order  in  the  Christian  ministry,  higher  than  presby- 
ters, and  possess  powers  and  authority  not  belong- 
ing to  presbyters  as  such.* 

2.  That  bishops  are  the  successors  of  the  apostles, 
and  have  as  such  the  sole  right  to  ordain  to  the 
Christian  ministry.^ 

3.  That  no  ministry  lacking  such  ordination  is 
valid,  and  that  the  ordinances  of  religion  admin- 
istered by  anyone  not  thus  ordained  are  unavailing 
as  means  of  divine  grace.^ 

Such  are  a  few  of  the  principles  involved  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  historic  episcopate. 

With  the  dogma  of  apostolical  succession,  that 
is,  a  personal  tactual  succession,  this  treatise  is  not 
directly  concerned.  A  chronological,  uninterrupted 
succession  in  Christendom  is  no  longer  worthy  of 
the  serious  consideration  of  the  historian.  While  it 
may  be  satisfactorily  inferred  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment and  from  early  Christian  writings  that  episco- 
pacy, in  moderate  degree,  was  the  prevailing  polity 
in  the  apostolic  age,  that  there  never  was  a  time 
when  bishops,  overseers,  or  superintendents  were 
not  recognized  as  the  chief  pastors  of  the  flock  of 
Christ,  still,  the  same  Scriptures  unmistakably  teach 
that  bishops  are  not  successors  of  the  apostles, 
either  in  power,  in  gifts,  in  grace,  or  in  authority  ; 

'  Rose,  Cotmnission  and  Consequent  Duties  of  the  Clergy^  Appendix, 
pp.  189,  190. 

^  Palmer,   Treatise  on  the  Church,  vol.  i,  pp.  142,  143. 

2  Dean  Hook,  Church  Dictionary,  art.  "  Anglo-Catholic  Church." 


GENERAL   SURVEY.  I 7 

that  they  are  not  by  divine  right  a  distinct  order 
from  presbyters,  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  they 
are  of  the  same  order  (Acts  xx,  17,  28;  Titus 
i,  7 ;  I  Peter  v,  23 ) ;  that  the  quaHfications  for 
a  bishop  are  identical  with  those  required  for  a 
presbyter  (compare  i  Tim.  iii,  2-7,  and  Titus  i, 
6-10);  that  presbyters  have  the  same  power  and 
authority  in  ordination  as  bishops ;  and,  finally, 
that  continuity  of  apostolic  teaching  is  the  only 
true  and  apostolic  succession. 

This  was  also  the  belief  of  the  primitive  Church. 
Clement  of  Rome  (A.  D.  65)  knows  nothing  of 
three  orders  in  the  ministry.  With  him,  as  with  the 
New  Testament  writers,  bishops  and  presbyters  are 
the  same.  Writing  to  the  church  at  Corinth  on  the 
occasion  of  a  sedition  in  that  church,  he  says: 

For  it  would  be  no  small  sin  in  us  should  we  cast  off  those 
from  their  episcopate  who  holily  and  without  blame  fulfill  the 
duties  of  it.  .  .  .  Blessed  are  those  presbyters  who,  having  fin- 
ished their  course  before  these  times,  ...  for  they  have  no  fear 
lest  anyone  should  turn  them  out  of  their  place. 

The  Didache,  containing  a  summary  of  apostolic 
teaching,  and  which  is  among  the  earliest  documents 
of  the  Church,  like  the  Epistle  of  Clement,  knows 
only  of  two  orders — bishops,  who,  of  course,  were 
presbyters,  and  deacons.  Irenaeus  (A.  D.  167),  speak- 
ing of  heretical  ministers  elated  with  pride  in  having 
the  principal  seat,  exhorts  the  faithful  to  hold  alle- 
giance to  those  who  "  keep  the  doctrine  of  the  apos- 


1 8  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

ties,  and  with  the  order  of  the  presbyters — presby- 
tcrii  ordine — exhibit  soundness  in  word.  .  .  .  The 
Church  cherishes  such  presbyters,  of  whom  the 
prophet  says,  *  And  I  will  give  thy  governors — 
o/o%ovref — in  peace,  and  thy  bishops — 'fniaKo-r^ovq — in 
righteousness.'"'  Jerome,  summing  up  the  con- 
clusions from  Scripture  and  the  practice  of  the  apos- 
tolic Church,  writes: 

A  presbyter,  therefore,  is  the  same  as  a  bishop  ;  and  before 
dissensions  were  introduced  in  religion  by  the  instigation  of 
the  devil,  and  it  was  among  the  peoples,  "  I  am  of  Paul,  I  am 
of  Apollos,  and  I  of  Cephas,"  churches  were  governed  by  a 
common  council  of  presbyters.  .  .  .  But  because  at  that  time 
they  called  the  same  persons  bishops  whom  they  called  presby- 
ters, therefore  the  apostle  speaks  of  bishops  as  presbyters  indif- 
ferently. Should  this  still  seem  ambiguous  to  anyone  unless 
verified  by  another  testimony,  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  it 
is  written — 

He  then  cites  the  various  well-known  passages,  and 
from  Heb.  xii,  17  ;  i   Peter  v,  i,  and  then  continues: 

Therefore,  as  we  have  shown,  presbyters  were  the  same  as 
bishops ;  but  by  degrees,  that  the  plants  of  dissension  might 
be  rooted  up,  all  responsibility  was  transferred  to  one  person. 
Therefore,  as  the  presbyters  know  that  it  is  by  the  custom  of 
the  Church  that  they  are  to  be  subject  to  him  who  is  placed 
over  them,  so  let  the  bishops  know  that  they  are  above  pres- 
byters rather  by  custom  than  by  divine  appointment. 

But,  notwithstanding  the  demonstrable  fact  that 
apostolical  succession  can  never  be  proved  either 
from  Scripture  or  from  history,^  we  may  grant  the 


'  Advcrsus  Ilcvreses,  c.  xliv. 

-  Referriuij  to  this  \v:int  of  historic  truth,  Perceval,  Aposhlic  Stic- 


GENERAL    SURVEY.  I9 

supposition  of  it  for  the  time  being  in  order  more 
clearly  to  elucidate  the  truth.  Let  it  be  conceded 
that  there  has  come  down  from  the  apostles  an 
unbroken  succession  of  bishops,  and  that  that  suc- 
cession continues  and  is  in  force  at  present.  Let  it 
be  granted,  further,  that  the  Roman  and  the  Greek 
Churches  are  in  possession,  as  Anglicans  assert,  of 
this  succession.  The  questions  before  us,  then,  are. 
Does  the  Church  of  England  or  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  possess  this  same  succession  ? 
Have  these  Churches,  tried  by  the  principles  they 
lay  down  for  other  Churches,  a  truly  valid  ministry  ? 
Now,  since  the  Church  of  England  and  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church,  by  insisting  upon  this 
theory  of  succession,  which  by  them  has  been  made 
an  article  of  belief  equal  to  a  revealed  doctrine, 
reject  the  validity  of  ordination  in  other  Protes- 
tant Churches,  the  right  to  challenge,  on  these  same 
Anglican  principles,  the  validity  of  orders  in  the 
Established  Church  and  its  American  offshoot  can 
neither  be  questioned  nor  denied.  These  Churches 
possess  no  character  or  authority  which  would  en- 
title them    to  exemption  from   trial  on  their  own 

cession^  p.  17,  says:  "  If  nothing  will  satisfy  men  but  actual  demon- 
stration I  yield  at  once."     Riddle,   Christian  Antiquities ^   Preface  : 

"Whatever  may  become  of  apostolic  succession  as  a  theory  or  an 
institute,  it  is  impossible  to  prove  the  fact  of  such  succession."  And 
again  in  his  Plea  for  Episcopacy  :  "It  is  imjwssible  to  prove  the 
personal  succession  of  modern  bishops,  in  an  unbroken  episcopal  line, 
from  the  apostles  or  men  of  the  apostolic  age."     See  also  Keble  on 

Tradition^  p.  96. 


20  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

principles.  It  cannot  be  quietly  assumed  that  the 
Church  of  England  is  undoubtedly  founded  on  an 
historic,  legitimate  episcopate,  and  that  therefore  it 
possesses  the  right  to  lay  down  imperative  con- 
ditions for  other  Churches.  Before  it  or  the  Protes- 
tant Episcopal  Church  can  lawfully  presume  to  do 
this  it  must  produce  its  own  undoubted  credentials, 
and  must  make  good,  without  any  element  of  incer- 
titude in  its  evidence,  its  own  high  claims  to  author- 
ized succession. 

Upon  what,  then,  does  this  claim  to  the  historic 
episcopate  in  the  Church  of  England  rest?  As  an 
historic  fact  it  rests  solely  on  the  validity  and  sacra- 
mental character  of  Matthew  Parker's  consecration 
to  the  archiepiscopal  see  of  Canterbury.  He  is  the 
head  of  the  stream.  From  him  the  English  episco- 
pate is  derived.  He,  and  he  only,  is  the  foundation 
of  the  English  hierarchy  ;  and,  unless  it  can  be 
demonstrated,  as  it  has  not  been  and,  as  we  think, 
never  can  be,  without  any  suspicion  of  doubt  that 
he  was  truly  and  canonically  ordained,  then,  on 
Anglican  principles,  this  historic  episcopate  in  the 
Church  of  England  is  a  usurped  claim,  a  pretension 
engendered  of  ecclesiastical  pride,  or  an  unfortunate 
alternative,  which  has  proved  a  girdle  of  Ate,  forced 
upon  that  Church  by  religious  and  political  circum- 
stances ;  and  the  claim  of  the  Church  of  England  is 
false,  however  agreeable  that  claim  may  be  to  the 
dignity  and  to  the  illustrious  history  of  that  vener- 


GENERAL    SURVEY.  2  1 

able  Church.  Its  orders,  on  the  same  principles,  like 
those  of  other  Churches,  are  null  and  void.  Once 
the  issue  is  made  nothing  can  be  taken  for  granted. 
Historic  facts  alone  will  suffice.  Assumptions 
of  what  might  have  been  or  what,  judging  from 
circumstances,  must  have  been  done  will  be  of 
no  avail.  The  undoubted  historic  facts  alone  will 
be  admitted  in  evidence.  In  no  instance  will  any 
degree  of  rational  doubt  be  allowed,  nor  should  An- 
glicans who  sit  in  judgment  on  the  orders  of  other 
Churches  desire  it ;  for,  if  in  the  evidence  there  is 
reasonable  ground  for  doubt,  then,  on  the  universal 
legal  m.axim,  *'  Nemo  dat  quod  non  habct^'  the  valid- 
ity of  all  subsequent  ordinations  emanating  from  that 
source  would  also  be  doubtful.  Such  uncertainty 
would  be  death  to  the  historic  episcopate  and  an- 
nihilation to  the  affirmations  and  demands  of  An- 
glican prelates. 

It  is  our  purpose,  then,  to  show:  I.  That  the  fact 
of  Matthew  Parker's  consecration  is  at  least  doubt- 
ful ;  2.  That  if  he  was  consecrated  the  consecration, 
on  Anglican  principles,  was  invalid  ;  3.  That  if  valid 
it  did  not  continue  the  apostolical  succession  ;  4. 
That  the  Church  of  England,  when  established  by 
law  in  the  Reformation,  utterly  rejected  the  theories 
and  principles  now  maintained  by  High  Church 
teachers  as  the  original  doctrines  of  the  Church  of 
England. 


22  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 


CHAPTER    II. 
Ojnsecfation  of  Matthew  Parkcn 

WHEN  the  Princess  Elizabeth,  daughter  of 
Henry  VIII  and  Anne  Boleyn,  ascended  the 
throne  of  England,  in  1558,  the  Roman  Catholic 
faith  was  the  established  religion  of  the  nation.  It 
was  a  period  of  convulsion  and  of  change.  Whether 
the  Reformation,  which  had  been  inaugurated  under 
Henry,  continued  with  varying  success  under  Ed- 
ward VI,  but  was  suddenly  arrested  by  the  hand  of 
Mary,  would  again  revive  in  the  new  reign  was  a 
State  problem,  as  well  as  a  religious  question.  Eliz- 
abeth, however,  was  considered  as  favorable  to  Re- 
form, and  in  her  the  hopes  of  the  Protestants  were 
centered.  As  Froude  points  out,  three  fourths 
of  the  people  of  England,  a  third  of  the  privy  coun- 
cil, and  a  large  majority  of  the  lay  peers  were  op- 
posed to  a  change  of  religion  ;  but  the  terrible  per- 
secutions under  Queen  Mary,  during  which  Bishops 
Hooper,  Ferrar,  Latimer,  Ridley,  and  Archbishop 
Cranmer  were  brought  to  the  stake,  had  produced 
generally  a  decided  reaction  from  the  popular  en- 
thusiasm which  had  placed  Mary  on  the  throne  and 
had  thereby  restored  the  Catholic  teaching.  The 
influence,  also,  of  a  powerful  minority  at  court  was 


CONSECRATION    OF    MATTHEW    PARKER.        23 

on  the  side  of  the  Reformed  doctrines.  Such  min- 
isters as  had  preached  the  pure  word  of  God,  had 
zealously  advocated  the  principles  of  the  Reforma- 
tion under  Edward  VI,  and  had  fled  the  kingdom 
when  Mary  became  queen,  were  now  returning  from 
Strasburg,  Zurich,  and  Geneva,  and  were  beginning 
anew  without  hindrance  the  work  of  reform. 

But  England  was  still  legally  Catholic.  All  laws 
of  the  realm  which  had  been  enacted  in  the  preced- 
ing reign  for  the  protection  or  enrichment  of  the 
Roman  Church  were  still  in  force.  Catholic  bishops 
occupied  the  sees  ;  not  one  Protestant  bishop  was 
in  possession  of  a  diocese ;  Elizabeth  was  crowned 
by  a  Roman  bishop ;  the  Roman  missal  was  used 
in  public  worship,  and  in  all  respects  the  religious 
character  of  the  nation  appeared  unchanged.  Eliza- 
beth herself  was  in  reality  but  little  inclined  to  the 
doctrines  of  the  Reformation.  Possessing  an  elastic 
conscience,  which  enabled  her  to  adjust  herself  with 
facility  to  the  varying  exigencies  of  the  situation, 
she  had  no  desire  to  radically  change  the  religion  of 
her  subjects,  whatever  may  have  been  her  purpose 
to  alter  the  form  of  it  or  to  employ  its  power  and 
prestige  in  behalf  of  the  crown,  at  home  or  abroad.' 
Slie   believed   in  the  real    presence,^  which  at  that 

'  Strype,  Annals  of  the  Reformation,  vol.  i,  part  i,  59,  74,  77  ;  Bur- 
net, History  of  the  Refor?)iation,  i,  585  ;  Collier,  Ecclesiastical  His- 
tory, vi,  200;  Froude,  History  of  England ;  Green,  Short  History 
of  the  English  People. 

^  Suype,  Annals,  vol.  i,  part  i,  2,  3. 


24  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

time  signified  transubstantiation  ;  retained  the  cru- 
cifix and  lighted  candles  on  the  altar  in  the  royal 
chapel;*  denounced  marriage  of  the  clergy;''  and 
threatened  to  issue  injunctions  in  favor  of  the  Roman 
Church.'  Before  the  prayer  book  which  was  to  take 
the  place  of  the  liturgy  in  use  under  Mary  was  pre- 
sented to  Parliament  for  adoption,  Elizabeth  made 
changes  in  it  which  brought  it  so  near  to  the  Roman 
missal  that  the  pope  agreed  to  ratify  its  use  in  Eng- 
land should  his  supremacy  be  acknowledged."  She 
insisted  that  ministers  officiating  at  the  eucharist 
should  be  clothed  with  vestments  worn  by  Catholic 
priests  in  the  celebration  of  the  mass,  and  that  the 
bread  used  in  the  sacrament  should  be  in  the  form 
of  the  wafer.*^  The  queen  at  the  beginning  of  her 
reign  was  evidently  desirous,  like  her  father  Henry, 
that  with  the  exception  of  papal  supremacy  the 
old  religion,  with  its  magnificent  ritual  and  splendor 
of  ceremony,  should  remain,  as  it  was,  the  religion  of 
her  kingdom. 

The  chiefs  of  the  Reformed  party,  however,  were 


^  "  Tlie  queen,  still  to  this  year  [1565],  kept  the  crucifix  in  her 
chapel." — Strype,  Annals,  vol.  i,  part  ii,  19S-200. 

^  Slrype,  Annals,  vol.  i,  part  i,  118. 

^Strype,  Life  of  Parker,  i,  217,  21S,  There  was  some  fear  that 
slie  would  abandon  Protestantism  altogether.  See  Curnet,  Records, 
17,  in  Appendix  to  Strype's  Parker. 

^  Slrype,  Annals,  vol.  i,  part  i,  340  ;  Burnet,  History  of  the  Rcfor- 
mation,  ii,  645  ;  Collier,  Ecclesiastical  History,  vi,  308,  309. 

^  Cardwell,  History  of  Conferences;  Short,  History  of  the  Church 
of  Engt'^nd,  537-549  ;  Collier,  Ecclesiastical  Hi^to7y,  vi,  248,  250. 


CONSECRATION    OF    jVIATTHEW    PARKER.        25 

of  another  mind.  They  were  determined  that  the 
Reformation  should  triumph.  The  Word  of  God 
should  be  free  in  England.  Evils  indeed  had  fol- 
lowed in  the  wake  of  Reform  ;  nobles  had  espoused 
its  cause  that  they  might  enrich  themselves  with 
the  spoils  of  the  Church ;  the  populace,  in  the  first 
flush  of  freedom  from  superstition,  had  plunged  into 
immoral  excesses  ;  there  was  a  restlessness  abroad 
that  endangered  the  stability  of  the  State  ;  but  these 
misfortunes,  incident  to  great  changes,  would  be 
remedied  if  the  authority  of  the  crown  should  be 
thrown  on  the  side  of  pure  religion.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  Church  of  Rome  was  Antichrist,  and 
should  receive  no  support  from  a  Christian  State ; 
the  doctrine  of  the  mass  was  a  horrid  blasphemy ; 
the  worship  of  saints,  of  relics,  and  the  adornment 
of  churches  with  images  and  pictures  were  gross 
superstition  ;  all  popish  rites  and  ceremonies  and  use 
of  vestments — "  Aaronic  ornaments  " — all  crosses 
and  altars  and  obeisances,  and  the  employment  of 
dead  tongues — mere  mumblings  of  the  Amorites — 
were  wholly  alien  both  to  the  spirit  and  to  the 
letter  of  the  Gospel.  There  could  come  no  peace 
to  the  nation  till  idolatry  was  put  out  of  the  land. 

Thus  the  distinction  between  the  Reformed  doc- 
trine and  the  Catholic  teaching  was,  not  merely  a 
variation  of  forms  or  a  question  of  authority,  but 
a  radical  difference  of  religion.  The  Christianity 
accepted  and  revered  by  the  Romanist  was  altogether 


26  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

another  system  from    that   which  was  apprehended 
by  the  Puritan  reformer. 

Religious  questions  were  national  interests,  and 
the  antagonism  of  Rome  to  the  person  and  policy 
of  the  queen  made  a  change  in  the  religious  char- 
acter of  the  kingdom  a  political  necessity.  Parlia- 
ment assembled  ;  bills  were  presented  ;  and  the 
building  of  the  temple  of  the  Reformers  was  again  re- 
sumed. By  repealing  the  ecclesiastical  laws  which 
had  restored  the  Catholic  faith  in  the  reign  of  Queen 
Mary,  and  by  reviving  certain  acts  of  Henry  VIII 
and  Edward  VI,  the  Reformed  doctrine  was  legally 
established  in  the  place  of  the  Roman  faith  as  the 
religion  of  the  nation.  Elizabeth  was  made  su- 
preme head  of  the  Church  in  England.  The  word- 
ing of  the  Act  of  Supremacy  is  of  particular  impor- 
tance.    Parliament  declared : 

Such  jurisdictions,  privileges,  superiorities,  and  preemi- 
nences, spiritual  and  ecclesiastical,  as  by  any  spiritual  or  eccle- 
siastical power  or  authority  have  heretofore  been,  or  may  law- 
fully be,  exercised  or  used  for  the  visitation  of  the  ecclesiastical 
state  and  persons,  and  for  reformation,  order,  and  correction 
of  the  same,  and  of  all  manner  of  errors,  heresies,  schisms, 
abuses,  offenses,  contempts,  and  enormities,  shall  forever,  by 
the  authority  of  the  present  Parliament,  be  united  and  annexed 
to  the  imperial  crown  of  the  realm. 

A  clause  in  the  same  act  granted  authority  to 
the  crown  to  delegate  the  powers  above  mentioned 
to  persons,  lay  or  clerical,  who  should  act  as  com- 
missioners to  order,  restrain,  or  amend  anything 
in  the  Church;  '*  which,  by  any  manner  of  spiritual 


CONSECRATION    OF    MATTHEW  PARKER.         2/ 

or  ecclesiastical  power,  authority,  or  jurisdiction, 
can  or  may  lawfully  be  reformed,  ordered,  redressed, 
corrected,  restrained,  or  amended."  By  this  act 
not  only  was  the  entire  discipline  of  the  Church 
placed  in  the  power  of  the  crown,  but  even  laymen, 
who  may  or  may  not  be  Christians  at  all,  might 
exercise  decisive  authority  in  all  ecclesiastical  affairs 
over  the  ministers  of  religion.  Further,  by  the  Act 
of  Uniformity  it  was  made  a  statutory  law  *^  that 
the  queen's  majesty,  by  the  advice  of  her  ecclesias- 
tical commissioners,  may  ordain  and  publish  such 
ceremonies  or  rites  as  may  be  most  for  the  advance- 
ment of  God's  glory  and  the  edifying  of  the  Church." 
Strype  *  also  says  that  in  this  first  Parliament  a  bill 
passed  the  House  of  Commons  empowering  the 
queen  to  collate  or  appoint  bishops  to  vacant 
bishoprics,  without  rites  or  ceremonies.  The  power 
to  do  this,  however,  was  already  involved  in  the  Act 
of  Supremacy. 

Thus  all  spiritual  jurisdiction,  the  supreme 
power  of  guiding  and  governing  the  Church  of 
God,  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  Elizabeth.  The 
ministers  of  religion,  even  in  the  exercise  of 
their  calling,  were  mere  officials,  mere  servants 
of  the  crown,  which  could  prescribe  the  forms 
of  prayer,  ordain  the  character  of  rites  and  cere- 
monies, and  with  a  word  make  or  unmake  these 
ministers  at  will. 

'  Annals y  p.  67. 


28  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

The  plea  made  by  Haddan  and  others,  that  Eliz- 
abeth and  her  Parliament  were  not  sources  of  au- 
thority for  the  Church,  but  that  they  only  gave  the 
sanction  of  civil  law  to  its  decrees  and  ritual  regu- 
lations, by  which  plea  Anglicans  hope  to  remove 
certain  difficulties  from  their  claim  to  the  historic 
episcopate,  was  long  ago  made  by  Bishop  Burnet  in 
his  Vindication  of  English  Ordinations.  In  that  book 
he  cites  in  justification  the  interference  in  Church 
affairs  of  the  emperors  Constantine,  Theodosius, 
and  Charles  the  Great.  But  he  was  careful,  as  re- 
cent Anglican  writers  are  also  careful,  to  avoid  the 
rock  upon  which  this  plea  is  wrecked — the  fact  that 
neither  these  emperors,  nor  any  ruler  after  them, 
ever  arrogated  to  themselves  supremacy  in  the 
Church,  or  exercised  any  authority  in  matters  of 
religion  or  any  jurisdiction  over  bishops  or  minis- 
ters as  supreme  heads  of  the  Church,  such  a  head 
as  Elizabeth,  by  enactment  of  Parliament,  was  con- 
stituted to  be,  and  in  which  capacity  exercised  su- 
preme authority  over  the  Church  of  England, 

Elizabeth  understood  full  well  the  scope  and  pur- 
pose of  her  authority.^  When  the  Bishop  of  Ely 
(Cox)  refused  at  the  command  of  the  queen  to 
alienate  certain  lands  and  manors  of  his  see,  she 
wrote : " 

^  Cardwell,  Documentary  Annals,  ii,  171  ;  Strype,  Life  of  Grin- 
dal,  290  ;  Lamb,  Historical  Account  of  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles ; 
Caldwell,  History  of  Conferences,  21,  22,  note. 

^Strickland,  Queens  of  England,  i,  234. 


CONSECRATION    OF    MATTHEW    PARKER.        29 

Proud  Prelate  :  You  know  what  you  were  before  I  made 
you  what  you  are.  If  you  do  not  immediately  comply  with  my 
request,  by  G — d  I  will  unfrock  you.  Elizabeth. 

In  her  speech  to  Parliament,  1584,  her  majesty 
informed  the  bishops  that  if  they  did  not  amend 
their  ways  she  would  depose  every  one  of  them. 
*'  For  there  seems  to  have  been,"  says  Hallam,  ''  no 
question  in  that  age  but  that  this  might  be  done  by 
virtue  of  the  crown's  supremacy."  Prior  to  this, 
when  the  EHzabethan  Articles  of  Religion  were  sent 
up  for  ratification  to  the  House  of  Lords  they  were 
**  stayed  by  commandment  from  the  queen,"  for  the 
reason  that  she,  and  not  Parliament,  was  the  head 
of  the  Church,  and  that  that  method  of  putting  forth 
the  book  was  an  invasion  of  her  prerogative.  The 
primate  and  bishops  petitioned  her,  says  Hardwick, 
to  accelerate  the  passage  of  the  bill  authorizing  tlie 
publication  of  the  Articles  through  the  House;  but 
their  petition  was  of  no  avail,  ^'  for  the  queen,  im- 
movably resolved  to  gain  what  she  considered  her 
prerogative,  cut  short  all  further  '  doings  of  the  Com- 
mons '  by  dissolving  Parliament." 

The  Act  of  Supremacy  also  provided  that  all  per- 
sons holding  ofifice  under  the  crown,  civil,  militar}-, 
or  ecclesiastical,  should  take  an  oath  acknowlecdging 
the  royal  supremacy.  By  this  requirement  every 
bond  between  the  Roman  Church  and  the  Reformed 
Church  was  broken.  The  hierarchy,  which  Anglicans 

afiRrm  had  undoubted  succession,  was  destroyed.    In 
3 


30  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOrATE. 

the  whole  kingdom  there  were  twenty-four  episcopal 
and  two  archiepiscopal  sees.  The  sees  of  nine  bishops 
and  of  one  archbishop  were  vacant.  In  July,  1559, 
the  remaining  bishops  and  archbishops  were  sum- 
moned by  the  lords  of  council  and  ordered  to  take 
the  oath;  but,  with  the  exception  of  Kitchin,  Bishop 
of  Llandaff,  they  all  refused,  and  by  the  end  of 
September  they  were  all  deprived  of  their  sees  by 
High  Court  of  Commission.'  In  this  manner  the 
Roman  sees  were  emptied  of  their  bishops — a  mode 
quite  as  legal  as  that  by  which  the  bishops  of  Ed- 
ward VI  had  been  deprived  in  the  preceding  reign — 
and  there  now  remained  in  all  England  no  bishop, 
except  Kitchin,  who  might  lawfully  exercise  the 
functions  of  his  office  or  who  could  with  any  assur- 
ance transmit  the  succession. 

The  archiepiscopal  see  of  Canterbury,  the  high- 
est in  England,  being  vacant  by  the  death  of  Car- 
dinal Pole,  it  was  of  prime  importance  that  it 
should  be  filled  as  soon  as  possible  by  one  in 
harmony  with  the  new  order  of  things  in  Church 
and  State.  For  this  purpose  Queen  Elizabeth, 
according  to  her  royal  prerogative,  issued  a  man- 
date, September  9,  1559,  to  four  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  bishops,  Tonstal  of  Durham,  Bourne  of 
Bath  and  Wells,  Poole  of  Peterborough,  and  Kitchin 
of  Llandaff,  and  to  Doctors  in  Divinity  Barlow  and 

'  llallam,  Constitutional  History  of  England,  p.  73  ;  Heylin, 
History  of  the  Reformation. 


CONSECRATION    OF    MATTHEW    PARKER.         3 1 

Scory,  who  had  been  ejected  from  their  sees  in 
Mary's  reign,  commanding  them  to  consecrate  Mat- 
thew Parker,  who  was  a  professor  of  sacred  the- 
ology, Archbishop  of  Canterbury.  The  Roman 
bishops  refused  to  obey  the  mandate.  They  recog- 
nized neither  the  spiritual  authority  of  the  queen 
nor  the  episcopal  character  of  Barlow  and  Scory. 
The  attempt  to  link  by  royal  authority  the  new 
hierarchy  on  to  the  old  proved  an  embarrassing 
failure.  But  the  failure  to  establish  with  becoming 
dignity  some  sort  of  a  hierarchy  was  not  the  worst 
evil,  if  evil  it  was,  that  shadowed  the  doubtful 
birth  of  that  episcopal  system  which,  forgetting  its 
plebeian  origin,  began  in  the  next  reign  to  assert  for 
itself  a  divine  parentage.  By  separating  from  the 
ancient  Church — the  treasury  of  mystical  grace — 
apostolical  succession,  if  there  was  ever  such  a  thing 
in  the  universe,  was  now  made  impossible  to  the 
newborn  Church  established  by  act  of  Parliament. 
For,  although  the  newly  constituted  Church  might 
have  consecrated  ministers  and  bishops,  yet  these 
servants  of  the  crown  could  not,  on  modern  Anglican 
principles,  be  in  possession  of  the  succession,  since 
they  had  severed  themselves  in  matters  of  faith  and 
practice  from  that  Church  which  had  given  them 
authority  and  in  which  they  acknowledged  the  grace 
and  fact  of  apostolical  succession  alone  to  reside. 
Otherwise,  the  Arian,  Donatist,  and  Eutychian 
bishops,    validly    ordained,     but    all     rejected     as 


32  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

heretiail,  would  also  be  in  the  succession — an  absurd 

doctrine,  rejected  alike  by  Romanist  and  Anglican.' 

The  failure  of  this  commission'*  resulted  in  the 

issuance  of  another  mandate,   dated  December  6, 

I559-- 

Elizabeth,  by  the  grace  of  God,  of  England,  France,  and 
Ireland  queen,  defender  of  the  faith,  etc.,  to  the  Reverend 
Fathers  in  Christ,  Anthony,  Bishop  of  Llandaff,  William  Bar- 
low, sometime  Bishop  of  Bath,  now  elect  of  Chichester,  John 
Scory,  sometime  Bishop  of  Chichester,  now  elect  of  Hereford, 
Miles  Coverdale,  sometime  Bishop  of  Exeter,  John,  Suffragan 
of  Bedford,  John,  Suffragan  of  Thetford,  John  Bale,  Bishop  of 
Ossory,  [commanding  them  to  consecrate  Matthew  Parker 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury]  according  to  the  form  of  the  stat- 
utes in  this  behalf  set  forth  and  provided ;  supplying,  never- 
theless, by  our  supreme  royal  authority,  of  our  mere  motion 
and  certain  knowledge,  whatever  (either  in  the  things  to  be 
done  by  you  pursuant  to  our  aforesaid  mandate,  or  in  you,  or 
any  of  you,  your  condition,  state,  or  power  for  the  performance 
of  the  premises)  may  or  shall  be  wanting  of  those  things  which, 
either  by  the  statutes  of  this  realm  or  by  the  ecclesiastical  laws, 
are  required  or  are  necessary  on  this  behalf,  the  state  of  the 
times  and  the  exigency  of  affairs  rendering  it  necessary. 

In  obedience  to  this  mandate  Matthew  Parker, 
it  is  said,  was  consecrated  Archbishop  of  Canterbury 
in  the  chapel  at   Lambeth   House,  December    17, 

*  See  Augustine,  De  Dessidio  Donatistariim  ;  Tertullian,  De 
Prmscriptione  HcErcticorum^  c.  xx,  xxi,  xii,  xxvi. 

'Before  this  mandate  vvas  issued  there  was  no  little  embarrassment 
how  to  proceed.  Among  the  State  papers  of  the  time  is  a  letter  from 
Parker  to  Cecil,  Elizabeth's  secretary,  on  the  margin  of  which  Cecil 
made  some  notes.  One  refers  to  Edward's  Ordinal  ;  and  Cecil  writes, 
'*  This  is  not  established  l)y  Pnilianient."  The  other  relates  to  the 
consecration.  Cecil  notes,  "  There  is  no  archbishop  nor  III  bishops 
now  to  be  had  ;  wherefore  qiiarenduin.*' 


CONSECRATION    OF    MATTHEW    PARKER.        33 

1559,  by  the  persons  named,  except  Kitchin,  Bishop 
of  Llandaflf,  Bale,  and  the  Suffragan  of  Thetford. 

Such  were  the  events  leading  up  to,  and  such  were 
the  means  by  which,  the  Anglican  hierarchy  was  es- 
tablished. It  originated  as  we  see  in  the  civil  power, 
and  on  that  power  was  and  is  dependent  for  its 
continuance.  ''  It  drew  its  life  from  Elizabeth's 
throne,"  says  the  historian  Froude,  "  and  had  Eliza- 
beth fallen  it  would  have  crumbled  into  sand.  .  .  . 
The  image  in  its  outward  aspect  could  be  made  to 
correspond  with  the  parent  tree ;  and  to  sustain 
the  illusion  it  was  necessary  to  provide  bishops  who 
could  appear  to  have  inherited  their  powers  by  the 
approved  method  as  successors  of  the  apostles." 

We  have  seen  the  authority  granted  the  queen  as 
head  of  the  Church — how  she  might  rule  in  every 
affair  of  the  Church  directly  without  intervention 
of  Parliament,  or  indirectly  through  commissioners 
appointed  by  herself;  how  by  her  mere  word  she 
could  appoint  bishops  or  depose  them,  and  change 
rites  and  ceremonies,  and  even  the  very  prayers  that 
were  offered  in  divine  worship.  In  view  of  these 
facts,  and  considering  the  religious  temper  of  the 
time  and  the  avowed  opinions  of  the  chief  con- 
secrator,  what  undoubted  proof  is  there  that  Mat- 
thew Parker  was  truly  consecrated  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury?  That  some  act  of  importance  to  the 
Church  of  England  occurred  at  this  time  we  need  not 
doubt ;  but  was  it  a  consecration,  or  was  it  an  instal- 


34  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

lation  following  royal  appointment,  according  to  the 
crown's  prerogative  as  head  of  the  Church?  Did  the 
queen  really  issue  a  second  mandate? 

Now,  it  is  a  matter  of  history  that  this  consecra- 
tion has  been  questioned,  both  as  to  fact  and  form, 
by  Romanist  and  Presbyterian,  from  the  time  it  was 
first  heard  of  to  the  present  day.  Neither  Mason's 
VindicicB  nor  Godwin's  PrcBsulibus,  the  efforts  of 
Bramhall,  or  the  editor  of  Bramhall,  with  all  his  in- 
genuity and  learning,  has  been  able  to  dispel  the 
doubts  which  first  clouded  the  announcement  of  the 
event.  The  Presbyterians  contended  that  the  bish- 
ops consecrated  by  Parker  were  not  true  bishops, 
since  he  himself  was  not,  and  that  if  such  bishops 
had  seats  in  Parliament  they  also  were  entitled  to 
the  same.  Again,  among  the  official  documents 
between  the  date  of  Parker's  election  by  the  chapter 
of  Canterbury — which  was  not  a  true  election — Au- 
gust I,  1559,  and  the  date  given  for  his  consecration, 
December  17,  1559,  there  is  much  confusion  and 
contradiction.  While  only  archbishop  elect,  Parker 
himself,  in  a  letter  to  the  council,  styles  himself 
archbishop,  as  if  his  nomination  by  the  queen  in  the 
coiige  d'elire  to  the  chapter  and  his  subsequent 
election  were  sufficient.  The  letters  patent,  dated 
December  6,  1559,  and  which  have  neither  seal  nor 
signature,  simply  authorize  his  consecration.  But 
in  a  royal  commission  signed  by  the  queen  herself 
— per  ipsam  rf^i nam— dated  October  20,  1559,  nearly 


CONSECRATION    OF   MATTHEW    PARKER.        35 

two  months  before  he  was  consecrated,  the  queen 
addresses  him  as  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  this 
in  a  legal  document  granting  him  certain  powers 
belonging  to  his  office. 

What  proof  is  there,  then,  that  Matthew  Parker 
was  not  archbishop  solely  by  appointment  of  the 
queen  ?  Where  is  the  proof  in  which  there  is  no 
room  for  reasonable  doubt  that  he  was  truly  con- 
secrated? T*o  one  who  adopts  the  principles  of  the 
High  Church  party,  in  order  to  show  that  these 
principles  are  suicidal  when  applied  to  the  genuine- 
ness of  their  own  ministerial  orders,  it  makes  little 
difference  whether  the  fact  of  Parker's  consecration 
can  be  proved  or  not ;  but  to  those  who  really  be- 
lieve the  Anglican  theory  of  succession,  indubitable 
proof  of  the  fact  is  a  matter  of  life  or  death.  Valid 
ordination  and  apostolical  succession  are  two  things, 
separate  and  distinct.  The  first  is  no  absolute  guar- 
antee for  the  second.  Not  only  must  the  fact  of  con- 
secration be  undoubtedly  established,  but  it  must 
also  be  shown  that  those  who  consecrated  Parker  had 
the  authority  to  consecrate,  and  also  that  in  contin- 
uing the  succession  they  continued  it  according  to 
the  intention  and  theological  teaching  of  the  source 
whence  they  received  it;  otherwise,  that  which  they 
transmitted,  supposing  that  anything  was  transmitted 
at  all,  was  not  that  which  they  had  received  or  was  in- 
tended to  be  conveyed,  but  something  wholly  differ- 
ent, and  the  succession  in  their  case  wascertainlylost. 


36  THE  HISTORIC  episcopate. 

The  first  evidence  offered  in  proof  of  Matthew 
Parker's  consecration  is  the  Lambeth  register  con- 
taining the  record  of  the  fact.  This  record,  says 
Haddan,  ''  occupies  from  the  second  to  the  eleventh 
leaf  of  Parker's  register,  vol.  i.  The  volume  is  an 
entire  volume,  bound  together  before  it  was  used ; 
not  a  collection  of  separate  documents  bound  to- 
gether after  they  were  written."  It  is,  therefore, 
either  the  original  book  in  which  were  recorded  the 
facts  related  to  the  consecration  at  the  time  they 
transpired,  or  it  is  a  book  in  which  were  copied  the 
record  of  the  facts  from  original  documents.  That 
it  is  not  a  book  of  copies,  but  the  original  record  it- 
self, is  clearly  the  fact  that  Haddan  is  desirous  of 
proving.  That  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  this  is  evi- 
dent from  the  statement  by  Archbishop  Wake  to 
Le  Courayer : 

You  may  depend  upon  it  that  the  whole  entry  of  the  acts  of 
M.  Parker's  consecration,  with  all  the  instruments  relating  to 
it,  in  my  registers  are  written  in  the  same  hand  with  the  other 
acts  of  what  passed  during  his  archiepiscopate,  and  all  at  the 
same  time  they  were  done. 

But  what  proof  is  there  that  this  register  is  itself 
genuine?  Has  it  been  subjected  to  the  test  of 
those  principles  of  literary  and  historical  criticism 
which,  for  instance,  are  applied  so  rigorously  to  the 
New  Testament  manuscripts  and  the  documents  of 
early  Christianity — the  epistles  of  Ignatius,  for  ex- 
ample? Forgery,  it  is  a  well-known  fact,  was  com- 
mon  in   the  days  of  Elizabeth  ;  and  in  the    reign 


CONSECRATION    OF    MATTHEW    PARKER.        37 

of  James  I  a  general  pardon  was  once  granted  to 
those  who  liad  forged  State  papers,  charters,  deeds, 
etc.  Every  important  document,  then,  of  that  pe- 
riod must  be  accepted  with  caution  by  the  critic, 
and  such  a  vaUiable  proof  as  this  register  is  assumed 
to  be  must  have  some  unassailable  verification  of 
its  genuineness.  What  is  the  internal  and  external 
evidence  in  its  favor  ? 

The  consecration  of  Matthew  Parker  took  place, 
it  is  affirmed,  December  17,  A.  D.  1559.  But,  not- 
withstanding the  fact  that  the  announcement  of  the 
act  was  challenged  and  proofs  demanded  that  the 
act  had  been  performed,  this  register  containing 
the  record  of  the  event  was  not  produced  till  A.  D. 
161 3,  fifty-four  years  after  the  alleged  act  occurred. 
Among  the  Romanists,  Harding  pressed  Jewel,  one 
of  Parker's  bishops,  to  show  the  credentials  of  the 
new  episcopacy.  Others,  as  Sanders,  Bristow,  and 
Stapleton,  lynx-eyed  watchers  of  everything  done 
by  the  new  regime,  repeatedly  denied  the  fact  of 
the  consecration.  But  no  register  was  ever  produced 
to  prove  it  ;  for  which  reason  Romanists  and  Pres- 
byterians declared  that  the  new  bishops  were  bish- 
ops only  by  appointment  of  the  queen,  according 
to  the  Act  1st  Elizabeth,  and  referred  to  them  com- 
monly as '^  Parliament  bishops."  Where  was  this 
register  during  these  fifty-four  years  ?  Is  it  a  fact 
that  it  is  a  contemporaneous  record  of  the  event 
upon  which  the  historic  episcopate    rests?      It    is 


38  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

something  remarkable  that  neither  Haddan  nor 
Bailey  nor  any  Anglican  writer  gives  any  contem- 
porary evidence  of  its  existence.  Stow,  the  friend 
^nd/>ro/e^e  of  Parker,  makes  no  mention  of  it  in 
his  chronological  history;  Godwin's  work  on  An- 
glican prelates,  published  first  in  English  in  1601, 
knows  nothing  of  it ;  in  fact,  no  writer  or  historian 
of  the  period  mentions  it.  But  in  16 13  Mason, 
chaplain  to  Abbot,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  pub- 
lished his  Vindicicey  and  then  for  the  first  time  in 
fifty-four  years  this  precious,  all-essential  document 
triumphantly  saw  the  light.  How  could  such  an 
important  volume,  by  no  means  small,  containing, 
as  Haddan  says,  the  record  of  "  the  earliest  acts  of 
jurisdiction  dated  two  and  three  days  after  Parker's 
confirmation,"  drop  so  completely  out  of  the  sight 
and  memory  of  man  so  soon  after  the  alleged  con- 
secration, notwithstanding  the  numerous  records 
that  were  made  and  were  to  be  made  in  it,  that  it 
could  not  be  appealed  to  for  half  a  century? 

Again,  this  register  was  made  known  for  the 
first  time  in  the  reign  of  James  I.  It  is  worthy 
of  note  that  it  was  at  this  time  that  a  general 
pardon  was  granted  to  those  who  had  been  guilty 
of  forging  public  documents,  of  erasing  or  interlin- 
ing rolls,  records,  briefs,  or  other  documents  in  that 
reign  or  in  any  preceding  reign — strong  evidence, 
apparently,  that  public  documents  had  been  tam- 
pered  with  in   royal  courts  and  forged  by  skillful 


CONSECRATION    OF    MATTHEW    PARKER.         39 

hands.  In  view  of  this  notorious  fact  the  crit- 
ical inquirer  would  be  justified,  it  would  seem, 
in  asking  how  it  happened  that  the  register  was 
discovered  at  this  particular  time,  the  early  part 
of  the  reign  of  James  I. 

About  this  time  marked  changes  in  political  and 
ecclesiastical  opinions  began  to  unfold  themselves. 
The  seed  sown  in  other  years  began  to  bear  astonish- 
ing fruit.  In  the  early  days  of  the  great  Elizabeth, 
when  England  was  in  her  life  or  death  struggle  with 
the  papacy  and  all  Europe  was  tossed  in  the  con- 
vulsive throes  of  religious  revolution,  Presbyterian 
and  Churchman,  like  true-hearted  Englishmen,  united 
against  the  common  enemy.  The  bloody  cruelties 
of  Mary  were  still  fresh  in  the  mind  of  the  nation  ; 
the  return  of  papal  power,  and  with  it  the  destruction 
of  the  liberties  of  England,  were  by  no  means  im- 
probable events;  in  their  theology  and  views  of 
Church  government  there  was  on  the  whole  little, 
if  any,  essential  difference  between  the  founders  of 
the  national  Church  and  the  Puritans.  Armini- 
anism  and  Calvinism,  Episcopalianism  and  Presby- 
terianism  were  not  then  deep  lines  of  cleavage  in 
Church  or  State,  the  rallying  cries,  as  they  after- 
ward became,  of  powerful  parties  struggling  for  su- 
premacy or  toleration.  But  in  the  closing  days  of 
Elizabeth,  when  England  was  at  comparative  peace, 
and  the  dominion  of  Rome  was  no  longer  a  dread, 
there  was  gradually  developed  a  modification  of  pre- 


40  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

vious  beliefs,  a  tendency  toward  readjustment  of 
ecclesiastical  relations,  an  assumption  on  the  part  of 
the  national  Church  of  the  principles  and  peerless 
claims  of  the  discarded  Roman  supremacy  over  all 
other  religious  sects  in  the  kingdom.  The  sturdy  Re- 
formers who  had  successfully  resisted  the  teachings 
of  Rome  and  had  delivered  England  to  the  freedom 
of  the  Gospel  were  all  dead.  Their  successors  leaned 
more  to  the  doctrines  and  polity  of  Rome  than  to 
the  teachings  and  simple  rites  of  Geneva.  **  In 
their  view,*'  says  Macaulay,  **the  episcopal  office  was 
essential  to  the  welfare  of  a  Christian  society  and 
to  the  efficacy  of  the  most  solemn  ordinances  of 
religion.  To  that  office  belonged  certain  high  and 
sacred  privileges  which  no  human  power  could  give 
or  take  away.  A  Church  might  as  well  be  without 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  or  the  doctrine  of  the 
Incarnation  as  without  episcopal  orders  ;  and  the 
Church  of  Rome,  which  in  the  midst  of  her  cor- 
ruptions had  retained  the  apostolical  orders,  was 
nearer  to  primitive  purity  than  those  Reformed  socie- 
ties which  had  rashly  set  up  in  opposition  to  the  di- 
vine model  a  system  invented  by  men."  Such  was 
the  new  attitude  of  the  Established  Church  toward 
other  Churches  in  the  kingdom. 

King  James  was  considered  averse  to  the  princi- 
ples of  the  Reformers  and  in  sympathy  with  those  of 
the  Catholics.  Before  the  death  of  Elizabeth  he  had 
intrigued  with  them  for  their  support,  and  on  his  ac- 


CONSECRATION    OF    MATTHEW    TARKER.        4 1 

cession  to  the  throne  their  hopes  revived.  The  king 
himself,  with  his  new  doctrine  of  the  divine  right 
of  kings,  asserted  the  divine  right  of  bishops.  ''  No 
bishop,  no  king,"  was  often  in  his  mouth,  and  for  the 
tenets  of  Presbyterianism  he  manifested  undisguised 
hostility.  Between  Puritanism  and  prelatjsm  the 
conflict  was  intense.  The  Church  flattered  the  mon- 
arch for  the  support  she  received,  and  in  her  Book 
of  Canons  buttressed  with  spiritual  authority  his  pet 
theory  of  passive  obedience.  Nevertheless,  James's 
study  of  the  fathers  and  his  fond  reverence  for  the 
usages  of  antiquity  had  made  him  as  doubtful  of 
the  legitimacy  of  English  episcopal  orders  as  the 
political  situation  had  increased  his  prejudice  against 
the  Puritans.  So  distrustful  was  James  of  these 
orders  that  it  is  afiirmed  that  he  entered  into  a  secret 
negotiation  with  the  pope  and  Henry  IV  of  France 
to  introduce  real  bishops  into  England,  who  should 
remain  concealed  until  the  time  was  ripe.  The  plan 
leaked  out  in  London,  and  James  changed  his  policy. 
Was  not  the  discovery  of  this  register,  then,  at  this 
particular  time,  in  the  midst  of  these  events,  a  very 
providential  coincidence  ? 

From  testimony  adduced  by  tlie  Rev.  Mr.  Bailey 
it  would  seem  still  further  that,  for  the  preservation 
of  the  hierarchy,  and  the  keeping  of  the  Church  al- 
lied to  the  throne  and  the  throne  to  the  Church, 
there  was  an  absolute  necessity  for  the  discovery 
of  this  register  or  a  like    document.       Mr.   Bailey, 


42  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

from  his  collection  of  records,  quotes  testimony  to 

the  fact  that  when  Sanders's  book  relating  to  the 

Nag's  Head  fable  concerning    the  consecration   of 

the  Elizabethan  bishops  came  to  King  James  "  it 

strattled  him:" 

Upon  this  he  [the  king]  cakl  liis  privy  council  and  shewed 
it  them,  and  withal  told  'em  that  he  was  a  stranger  among 
'em  and  knew  nothing  of  the  matter;  and,  directing  himself  to 
the  archbishop  [Abbot],  who  was  present,  "  My  Lord  (says  he), 
I  hope  you  can  prove  and  make  good  your  ordination,  for  by 
my  sol,  man  (says  he),  if  this  story  be  true  we  are  no  Church." 

The  archbishop  replies  that  by  examining  the 
Lambeth  register  he  could  produce  the  record  of 
Parker's  consecration.  Some  time  afterward  the 
document  is  produced — it  could  have  been  shown  the 
king  the  next  day,  for  Mason,  the  archbishop's  chap- 
lain, had  already  discovered  it  among  some  musty 
papers  in  the  Lambeth  Library — and  the  Earl  of 
Nottingham,  perusing  it,  declared,  **  It  was  ye  origi- 
nal he  saw  and  read  when  Archbishop  Parker  was 
ordained,"  fifty-four  years  before. 

But  if  this  record  was  so  easily  found  at  this 
particular  juncture,  on  the  appearance  of  Sanders's 
book,  why  was  it  not  produced,  in  answer  to  the 
repeated  demands  of  those  who  denied  its  ex- 
istence and  challenged  the  validity  of  the  new 
episcopal  orders,  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Eliz- 
abeth? Harding,  who  was  contemporary  with 
Parker  and  Barlow  and  the  others,  and,  like  the 
rest  of  his    coreligionists,  watchful  of  every  public 


CONSECRATION    OF   MATTHEW    PARKER.        43 

act,  challenged  Jewel  to  show  the  record  of  the  or- 
dination. *'We  say  to  you,  Mr.  Jewel,  and  to  each 
of  your  companions,  '  Show  us  the  register  of  your 
bishops;  show  us  the  letters  of  your  orders.'  ...  If 
you  cannot  show  your  bishoply  pedigree,  if  you  can 
prove  no  succession,  then  whereby  hold  you  ?  How 
can  you  prove  your  vocation  ?  By  what  authority 
usurp  you  the  administration  of  doctrine  and  sacra- 
ments ?  Who  hath  called  you  ?  Who  hath  laid 
hands  on  you  ?  How  and  by  Avhom  were  you  con- 
secrated ?"  But  no  register,  no  pedigree,  was  ever 
forthcoming.  Bishop  Jewel  returned  an  evasive 
answer.  Not  until  fifty-four  years  after  the  event, 
when  all  who  participated  in  it  and  all  who  wit- 
nessed it  were  dead  except  the  earl  of  prodigious 
memory,  was  the  register  produced,  and  then  at  a 
time  most  providential  for  the  continuity  of  the  hier- 
archy established  by  law. 

An  examination  of  the  register  furnishes  internal 
evidence,  it  is  said  by  those  contesting  it,  sufficient 
to  awaken  doubt  of  its  authenticity.  It  mentions 
Parker's  family  as  being  among  the  aristocracy.  A 
life  of  Parker,  translated  from  the  Historiola  of  the 
Masters  of  Corpus  Christi  College  and  published 
during  Parker's  lifetime  (1574)  by  one  who  knew 
him,  states  that  he  was  the  son  of  an  honest  weaver 
at  Norwich.  It  also  affirms  that  at  the  consecration 
the  Ordinal  of  Edward  VI  was  used,  which  Ordinal 
at  thnt  time  was  illegal,  it  not  having  been  restored. 


44  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

Elizabeth  certainly  expected  tliat  the  Roman  ritual 
would  be  employed  in  the  service,  for  it  cannot  be 
supposed  that  she  thought  the  Roman  bishops  to 
whom  she  sent  her  first  mandate  would  use  any 
other.  Between  the  date  of  that  mandate  and  the 
date  of  the  consecration  no  act  of  Parliament  was 
passed  legally  restoring  the  Ordinal  which  had  been 
outlawed  in  the  preceding  reign. 

Now,  this  Ordinal  supposes  only  one  consecrator; 
but  the  register  mentions  four.  This  leads  Haddan 
to  remark  in  a  note  that  ''  no  distinction  is  made 
between  the  presiding  bishop  and  the  assistant  bish- 
ops in  this  case."  But  why  should  these  consecra- 
tors  depart  from  the  Ordinal  which  they  assumed 
to  follow  ?  Is  there  any  attempt  here  to  supply 
the  deficiency  in  Parker's  consecration  by  making 
it  appear  that  Barlow  was  not  the  only  conse- 
crator ? 

The  statement  of  Haddan  that  ''  the  volume  is  an 
entire  volume,  bound  together  before  it  was  used, 
not  a  collection  of  separate  documents  bound  to- 
gether after  they  were  written,"  is  doubtless  designed 
to  suggest  the  absurdity  that  such  a  volume  could 
be  forged.  Indeed,  this  defender  of  Anglican  orders 
is  so  infallibly  certain  that  forgery  was  impossible 
in  this  instance  that  one  marvels  that  Queen  Eliza- 
beth, or  King  James,  should  ever  have  issued  par- 
dons to  persons  of  quality  guilty  of  forging  State 
papers,  interlining   or    erasing    rolls,  charters,  etc., 


CONSECRATION   OF   MATTHEW   PARKER.       45 

access  to  which  in  State  archives  was  no  doubt  as 
difficult  as  was  access  to  ecclesiastical  registers  in 
episcopal  houses. 

But  if  this  document  is  not  spurious  it  bears  upon 
its  face  the  most  unfortunate  marks  of  guilt  of  any 
document  ever  depended  upon  for  the  support  of  a 
great  cause.  Archbishop  Wake,  it  will  be  remem- 
bered, assured  Le  Courayer,  who  was  writing  in  de- 
fense of  English  orders,  that  everything  relating  to 
Parker's  consecration  in  the  registers  was  "  written 
in  the  same  hand  with  the  other  acts  of  what  passed 
during  his  archiepiscopate,  and  all  at  the  same  time 
they  were  done."  This  is  confirmed  by  others  who 
have  examined  the  register.*  Now,  what  are  the 
facts?  Anthony  Huse,  the  registrar,  died  in  June, 
1560,  and  was  succeeded  by  John  Incent.  Huse  is 
registrar  to  folio  221,  John  Incent  from  that  to  folio 
299.  The  handwriting,  then,  ought  to  be  different. 
But  it  is  not.  The  very  uniformity  upon  which  Mr. 
Haddan  relies  is  evidence  against  him.  Or  are  we 
to  believe  that  Anthony  Huse  wrote  in  the  same 
hand  the  whole  of  this  register  after  his  death  ?  for, 
as  Archbishop  Wake  testifies,  the  writing  is  in  the 
same  hand  and  was  done  at  the  time  of  the  events 
recorded.  Again,  in  the  acta  of  confirmation  in 
this  same  register,  as  printed  by  Haddan,  Francis 
Clarke    acts   as  scribe  in  the  absence  of  Anthony 

*  Notably  Canon  Williams,  to  whose  researches  in  this  particular 
matter  we  are  under  obligation. 


46  THE   HISTORIC   EPISCOPATE. 

Huse.     The  writing  in  this  instance  also  should  be 

different.     But  it  is  not. 

The  crowning  proof  that  that  part  of  the  register 

recording  Parker's  consecration  is  a  probable  forgery 

is  seen  in  the  fatal  blunder  of  whoever  wrote  it  in 

failing  to  keep  correct  time.     In  Haddan's  Latin 

copy  before  us  we  read : 

The  register  of  the  most  reverend  father  in  Christ,  his  lord- 
ship Matthew  Parker,  elected  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and 
confirmed  by  the  reverend  fathers  their  lordsliips  William 
Barlow,  lately  Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  now  elect  Sjuinc  elec- 
iui}i\  of  Chichester,  John  Scory,  formerly  Bishop  of  Chiches- 
ter, now  elect  \jiunc  electtmi]  of  Hereford,  .  .  .  likewise  con- 
secrated by  tiie  same  reverend  fathers,  under  the  same  author- 
ity, on  the  seventeenth  day  of  the  same  month  of  December, 
Anthony  Huse,  Esquire,  being  then  the  chief  registrar  [time 
registrario  primario\  of  the  said  most  reverend  father. 

How  can  Anglican  defenders  of  the  register  recon- 
cile these  different  times  and  make  them  one  and 
the  same  time?  Astounding  as  it  may  be,  here  is 
an  attempt  to  make  it  appear  that  this  record  was 
made  at  the  time  the  event  it  records  occurred — 
— "  Now  "  {nunc) — while  the  fact  drops  out  at  the 
end  that  it  was  not  written  until  some  time  after — 
"  Then  "  {tunc) — that  is,  after  Huse  had  ceased  to  be 
registrar  !  And,  as  one  of  our  authorities  shows,  the 
"  now  "  comprised  three  days  only,  for  Parker  was 
consecrated  December  17,  and  on  the  twentieth  of 
the  same  month  Barlow  and  Scory  were  confirmed 
in  their  sees  and  were  no  longer  elect,  but  absolute, 
Bishops   of  Chichester   and    Hereford.     Of  these 


CONSECRATION    OF    MATTHEW    PARKER.        47 

facts,  visible  on  the  face  of  the  register  itself, 
Anglican  learning  and  ingenuity  have  offered  no 
explanation.  "  Nemo  dat  quod  non  Jiabet''  There 
is  no  explanation  that  does  not  obscure  the  High 
Church  theory,  and  the  whole  elaborate  scheme 
of  evidence  supporting  the  erroneous  view  of  the 
historic  episcopate,  in  ever-thickening,  darkening 
doubt. 

The  royal  historiographer,^  Rymer,  compiled  all 
State  papers  of  the  period  in  one  great  work,  en- 
titled Foedera,  CoJivcntiones,  Literce,  et  ciijusciiinqtie 
Generis  Acta  Piiblica^^'iz.,  giving  to  each  paper  copied 
the  identical  authentication  possessed  by  the  origi- 
nal. Those  mandates,  royal  letters  patent,  etc.,  that 
bore  the  great  seal  are  marked  by  Rymer  "  Sub 
inagno  sigillo  Anglice ;  "  others  are  attested  under 
the  privy  seal  with  the  words  "  Teste  rege ;  "  some 
others  are  signed  by  the  queen  in  person,  and  in 
Rymer  all  sucji  have  the  conclusion  **  Teste  regina^' 
etc.,  or  ^'Per  ipsani  reginauiy  The  common  formula, 
*'  Teste  rege,''  on  many  papers  is  without  special 
value  unless  followed  by  seal  or  signature.  Now, 
the  first  mandate  for  the  consecration  of  Parker, 
dated  September  9,  1559,  but  which  was  disregarded, 
bears  a  proper  authentication,  "  Teste  regina,  per 
breve  de  privato  sigillo^  The  second  mandate,  dated 
December  6,   1559,  is  the  one  under  which  it  is  af- 

'  Canon  Williams,  Anglican  Orders  ;  Haddan,  Apostolic  Succes- 
sion; and  Mr.  Bailey,  Defense  of  Holy  Orders. 


43  THE   HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

firmed  Parker  was  consecrated  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury. What  is  the  authentication  ?  None  !  There 
is  no  seal,  no  signature.  It  is  very  strange  and 
very  unfortunate  that  this  particular  document  in 
this  particular  case  should  be  without  any  evidence 
of  royal  authority.  Those  who  deny  its  genuineness 
are  of  the  opinion  that  Elizabeth,  chagrined  at  the 
failure  of  her  first  mandate,  was  too  high-spirited  to 
issue  another  when  by  a  mere  word,  according  to  the 
teachings  of  the  Reformers  in  Edward  VFs  time,  and 
of  her  own  appointment,  it  was  lawful  to  make  one 
a  bishop  or  an  archbishop.  What  validity  such  an 
argument  has  we  will  not  stop  to  inquire ;  but  the 
following  evidence  is  given  by  those  who  make  it. 
In  Rymer  (xv,  546)  there  is  a  royal  commission,  prop- 
erly authenticated,  authorizing  certain  ones  to  ad- 
minister the  oath  of  supremacy  to  Matthew  Parker. 
The  document  is  genuine.  What  is  its  date  ?  Octo- 
ber 20, 1 559.  Here,  then,  in  this  very  commission — 
nearly  two  months  before  the  date  of  the  royal  man- 
date of  December  6,  1559,  issued,  it  is  said,  for  his 
consecration — the  queen  herself  in  a  legal  document 
styles  him  archbishop.  Was  he  then  archbishop  ? 
Mr.  Bailey  urges  the  fact  that  Barlow  must  have 
been  consecrated  bishop,  because  he  was  once  so 
styled  by  Queen  Mary  ;  "  therefore,  from  this  very 
fact  it  must  be  admitted  that  he  had  been  truly  con- 
secrated bishop  and  publicly  accepted  as  such  by 
the  queen."     He  quotes  Le  Courayer  at  length  to 


CONSECRATION    OF    MATTHEW    PARKER.        49 

the  same  effect.  Prior  to  December  17,  1559,  Mat- 
thew Parker  is  styled  archbishop  in  a  legal  docu- 
ment by  the  queen,  in  which  document  he  is  granted 
certain  powers  which  he  could  not  use  were  he  not 
archbishop ;  therefore,  we  might  say  with  Mr.  Bailey, 
**  from  this  very  fact  it  must  be  admitted  "  that  he 
was  archbishop  before  that  date,  archbishop  by 
royal  authority,  and  as  such  accepted  by  the  found- 
ers of  the  hierarchy  in  those  *'  spacious  times  of 
great  Elizabeth." 

Matthew  Parker  may  have  been  consecrated  arch- 
bishop, although  the  mandate  for  his  consecration 
is  without  seal  or  signature ;  he  may  liave  been  con- 
secrated, although  the  queen  by  prerogative  of  royal 
supremacy  could  have  made  him  archbishop  with- 
out consecration,  "the  state  of  the  time  and  the 
exigency  of  affairs  rendering  it  necessary  ;  "  he  may 
have,  notwithstanding  many  other  things,  been  con- 
secrated by  the  persons  named,  and  in  the  manner 
indicated — but  Parker's  register  alone  will  never 
prove  the  fact. 

What  other  proof,  then,  is  relied  upon  to  corrobo- 
rate Parker's  register  ?  There  are  several  relied  upon 
by  Mr.  Haddan,  such  as  Parker's  diary  and  a  diary 
kept  by  a  Mr.  Machyn,  a  merchant  in  London,  who 
says,  "The  xxiii  day  of  June  [1559]  were  elected  vi 
neew  byshopes  com  from  beyond  the  see,  master 
Parker,"  etc. — a  statement  which  is  not  true,  for 
Parker  did  not  retire  to  the  Continent,  as  did  many 


50  THE   HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

Others,  on  the  accession  of  Mary.     The  chief  sup- 
port, however,  is  derived  from  the  Zurich  Letters. 

Between  the  Reformers  in  England  and  those  on 
the  Continent  a  correspondence  was  maintained, 
which  correspondence,  known  as  the  Zurich  Letters, 
has  been  published  by  the  Parker  Society.  High 
Church  writers  regard  this  correspondence  as  clos- 
ing the  case  against  all  objectors.  Haddan  says: 
*'  These  letters  prove  in  detail,  with  the  conclusive- 
ness of  undesigned,  private,  and  casual  allusions, 
the  several  consecrations  of  the  bishops,  including 
Parker."  It  cannot  be  denied,  nor  is  there  any  ne- 
cessity for  denying  the  fact,  that  the  ZiiricJi  Letters 
furnish  strong,  if  not  conclusive,  evidence  that  Par- 
ker was  made  archbishop.  That  he  was  was  never 
doubted.  The  manner,  the  how  he  was  made  so,  is 
\\\Q  piece  de  resistance ;  and  the  evidence  is  just  as 
strong  for  the  belief  that  he  was  archbishop  by  royal 
authority  only,  as  others  had  been  made  bishops, 
for  whose  special  benefit  the  Act  8th  Elizabeth  was 
passed  confirming  them  in  their  appointment.  This 
correspondence,  so  confidently  appealed  to  by  An- 
glicans, is  not  without  its  difficulties  also,  if  these 
same  Anglicans,  between  whose  views  and  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Reformers  there  is  no  agreement  at  all, 
would  but  seriously  consider  them. 

Mr.  Bailey  gives  one  of  these  letters,  from  Jewel 
to  Peter  Martyr,  dated  at  London,  July  20,  1559, 
in  which  Jewel  writes,  "■  Some  of  our  friends  are 


CONSECRATION    OF    MATTHEW    PARKER.        5 1- 

marked  out  for  bishops,  Parker  for  Canterbury,"  etc. 
But  there  is  another  letter  from  Jewel  to  Peter 
Martyr  which  Mr.  Bailey  does  not  giv^e.  It  reads, 
*'  Yesterday,  as  soon  as  I  returned  to  London,  I 
heard  from  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  that  you 
are  invited  hither,  and  that  your  old  lectureship  is 
open  to  you."  What  is  the  date  of  this  letter.'^ 
November  2,  1559.  six  weeks  before  Parker's  alleged 
consecration  and  two  weeks  after  he  had  been  styled 
archbishop  by  the  queen  in  a  legal  document.  Mr. 
Bailey  quotes  another  letter.  It  is  from  Parkhurst 
to  Josiah  Simler,  dated  *'  Bishop's  Cleeve,  December 
20,  1559,"  and  reads,  *'  When  I  was  lately  in  London 
one  of  the  privy  councilors  and  Matthew  Parker,  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,"  etc.  Bishop's  Cleeve 
is  in  Gloucestershire.  Now,  when  we  reflect  upon 
the  distance  and  the  mode  of  travel  in  those  easy 
days,  it  is  clear  as  sunbeams  that  Parkhurst  left  Lon- 
don before  December  17,  the  date  of  Parker's  con- 
secration, and  that,  therefore,  as  the  queen  had 
styled  him,  and  as  the  letter  from  Jewel  to  Peter 
Martyr  had  styled  him,  Parker  was  archbishop  be- 
fore December  17.  Or  will  Anglicans  assume  that 
the  elevation  of  Matthew  Parker  was  so  certain  that 
he  was  regarded  already  as  archbishop  ?  In  any 
court  the  simple  response  would  be,  "  Prove  it." 
There  is  other  testimony  to  the  probability  that 
bishops  were  made  by  royal  designation  only,  as, 
for  instance,  the  petition  of  Parker,  Cox,  Grindal, 


$2  THE   HISTORIC   EPISCOPATE. 

Scory,  and  Barlow  that  Elizabeth  should  accept  cer- 
tain revenues  from  their  sees.  These  worthy  prel- 
ates were  not  confirmed,  it  will  be  remembered,  until 
after  the  consecration  of  Parker.  But  this  petition 
v/as  not  presented,  according  to  Strype  {Annals, 
chap,  vi),  later  than  September,  1559.  How,  then, 
could  these  gentlemen  give  away  the  revenues  of 
sees  they  did  not  possess  and  over  which  they  had 
no  jurisdiction  ?  The  explanation  is  that  they  were 
recognized  as  bishops  as  soon  as  nominated  by  the 
royal  prerogative,  and  nothing  further  was  con- 
sidered necessary. 

Not  pursuing  this  interesting  sidepath  further,  the 
important  questions  press  to  the  front,  Who  were 
Parker's  consecrators?  and,  secondly.  Did  they  hold 
to  what  is  now  known  as  Anglican  belief  concerning 
ministerial  orders?  If  the  Reformers  were  not  High 
Church  men,  representing  such  belief  in  the  Church 
in  the  name  of  which  they  consecrated  Matthew 
Parker,  if  they  did  not  believe  in  the  necessity  of 
episcopal  ordination  at  all,  but  recognized  freely  the 
ministerial  character  of  ministers  in  other  Churches 
not  possessing  or  indorsing  episcopal  ordination — all 
of  which  are  facts  of  history — then  it  is  simply  im- 
possible to  find  in  the  Church  of  England  by  law  es- 
tabUshed  any  intelligible  basis  for  the  notion  of  an 
historic  episcopate  which  is  now  made  a  funda- 
mental condition  of  ecclesiastical  union. 


FOUNDERS   OF   THE    HIERARCHY.  53 


F 


CHAPTER   III. 
Founders   of  the  Hierarchy* 

ROM  the  consecration  we  turn  to  the  consecra- 
tors.  The  bishops  who  consecrated  Matthew 
Parker  were,  according  to  the  register,  William  Bar- 
low, John  Scory,  Miles  Coverdale,  and  John  Hodg- 
kins.  Now,  from  our  assumed  position  of  apostolical 
succession,  we  may  inquire,  What  authority  did  these 
ministers  possess  to  consecrate  an  archbishop? 
Were  they  themselves  really  bishops  ?  Were  they 
canonically  ordained  ?  Is  there  no  doubt  whatever 
attached  to  their  orders  ?  Would  men  of  their 
avowed  beliefs  be  ordained  now  by  any  bishop  in 
the  Church  of  England  or  in  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal denomination  ? 

On  scriptural  grounds  and  on  the  rights  inherent 
in  the  Church  we  may  readily  acknowledge  their  au- 
thority. But  High  Church  writers  do  not  appeal  to 
Holy  Scripture ;  their  appeal  is  to  the  power  of 
orders  received  in  uninterrupted  succession.  By  this 
doctrine,  then,  it  is  truly  just  that  we  should  test  the 
orders  of  Parker's  consecrators  and  conclude  if  there 
is  no  doubt  shadowing  their  orders,  that  Matthew 
Parker  may  have  been  an  archbishop,  though  it  will 
by  no  means  follow  that  therefore  apostolical  succes- 


54  THE   HISTORIC   EPISCOPATE. 

sion  was  continued  in  the  Church  of  England.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  any  doubt  rests  upon  the  valid- 
ity of  their  orders,  the  historic  episcopate  among 
the  Anglicans  is  nothing  more  than  an  empty 
phrase. 

Now,  that  there  were  grave  doubts  concerning 
the  authority  of  some  or  all  of  these  consecrators  is 
sufficiently  evident  from  the  famous  supplying  clause 
in  the  mandate  commanding  them  to  consecrate  Dr. 
Parker : 

Supplying,  nevertheless,  by  our  supreme  royal  authority,  of 
our  mere  motion  and  certain  knowledge,  whatever  (either  in 
the  things  to  be  done  by  you  pursuant  to  our  aforesaid  man- 
date, or  in  you,  or  any  of  you,  your  condition,  state,  or  power 
for  the  performance  of  the  premises)  may  or  shall  be  wanting 
of  those  things  which,  either  by  the  statutes  of  this  realm  or  by 
the  ecclesiastical  laws,  are  required  or  are  necessary  on  this  be- 
half, the  state  of  the  times  and  the  exigency  of  affairs  rendering 
it  necessary. 

And  here  we  may  observe  that  this  clause  refutes 
beyond  all  question  the  plea  that  EHzabeth's  su- 
premacy was  only  of  a  civil  character.  The  queen, 
as  sovereign  of  England,  does  not  simply  permit  the 
consecration  to  take  place  within  her  dominions, 
but,  as  head  of  the  Church,  enters  the  spiritual  do- 
main of  the  Church  and  by  her  authority  dispenses 
with  all  disabilities,  and  supplies  whatever  is  want- 
ing for  any  cause  in  the  power  of  these  consecrators. 
As  in  part  of  Henry  VIII's  reign  and  in  that  of 
Edward  VI,  the  power  of  the  bishops  had  its  source 
in  the  crown.     "  On  the  accession  of  Edward  VI," 


FOUNDERS    OF   THE    HIERARCHY.  55 

says  Froude/  '*  the  bishops  of  the  reahn  were  to  re- 
gard themselves  as  possessed  of  no  authority  inde- 
pendent of  the  crown.  They  were  not  successors 
of  the  apostles,  but  merely  ordinary  officials.  Cran- 
mer  set  the  willing  example  in  an  acknowledgment 
that  all  jurisdiction,  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  secular, 
within  the  realm  only  emanated  from  the  sovereign." 
To  return  to  the  main  question.  If  there  were  no 
apprehensions  of  illegality,  if  there  were  no  doubts,  it 
is  difficult  to  understand  the  necessity  for  this  ex- 
traordinary, unprecedented,  and  most  comprehensive 
exercise  of  the  royal  supremacy.  Anglican  writers 
feel  the  weight  of  this  testimony,  and,  anxious  to 
dispel  the  doubts  in  the  case  of  Barlow  and  his  as- 
sistants, they  endeavor  by  every  ingenuity  of  argu- 
ment to  break  the  force  of  it.  Mr.  Haddan  attempts 
to  dispose  of  it  by  the  offhand  remark  that  "  that 
clause,  it  seems  hardly  necessary  to  say,  referred,  by 
the  nature  of  the  case,  to  possible  legal  defects,  and 
to  those  only,  and  among  others  [what  others?]  to 
the  very  cavils  advanced  just  afterward  by  Bonner." 
But  strong  assertion  is  no  substitute  for  proof.  The 
clause  itself  is  sufficient  refutation  of  Haddan's  rash 
statement,  for  it  refers  not  only  to  legal  disabilities 
of  a  civil  nature,  but  expressly  bears  upon  the  per- 
sonal **  condition,  state,  or  power,"  wanting  in  the 

^  History  of  England^  vol.  v,  American  ed.  See  also  Burnet,  Col- 
lection of  Records^  number  2,  where  tlie  commi<;sion  is  given  in  full. 
Thus,  we  see,  by  law,  and  not  by  spiritual  authority  emanating  from 
the  Church,  was  the  hierarchy  established. 


56  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

consecrators,  but  required  "  either  by  the  statutes  of 
this  reahn  or  by  the  ecclesiastical  laws."  Did  these 
men  have  authority  under  existing  civil  laws  to  or- 
dain ?  It  matters  not ;  this  comprehensive  clause 
supplies  the  authority.  But  did  they  have  authority 
to  perform  that  act  under  existing  ecclesiastical  laws  ? 
It  matters  not ;  this  supplying  clause  covers  that  de- 
fect also.  The  truth  is  that,  if  they  were  not  bishops 
at  all,  there  is  nothing  in  the  mandate  or  in  this 
supplying  clause  that  would  prohibit  them  from  per- 
forming the  episcopal  function  of  ordination ;  but,  on 
the  contrary,  it  is  expressly  and  minutely  declared 
that  any  defect,  of  any  character  whatever,  arising 
from  any  want  of  power  whatever  in  state  or  condi- 
tion, is  supplied  by  "  supreme  royal  authority,"  **  the 
state  of  the  times  and  the  exigency  of  affairs  ren- 
dering it  necessary." 

Mr.  Haddan's  other  claim,  that  the  clause  in  ques- 
tion referred  to  certain  cavils,  and  among  others  to 
those  advanced  "just  afterward  by  Bonner,"  is  very 
sweeping ;  but,  on  examination,  it  in  no  manner  es- 
tablishes his  contention.  Bishop  Bonner  was  in 
prison  in  1563,  and  refused,  when  Bishop  Home,  of 
Winchester,  presented  him  the  oath,  to  acknowledge 
the  queen's  supremacy  or  to  recognize  the  episco- 
pal character  of  Home,  on  the  ground  that,  as  was 
alleged,  he  was  ordained  by  King  Edward's  Ordinal, 
which,  having  been  abrogated  by  1st  Mary,sess.2,c.2, 
had   not  been  expressly  restored   by  act  of  Parlia- 


FOUNDERS    OF   THE    HIERARCHY.  57 

ment,  and  that,  therefore,  he  was  not  legally  a  bishop. 
Bonner  held  his  ground,  and  Home  could  do  noth- 
ing with  him.  There  was  evident  fear  to  test  the 
validity  of  the  recent  ordinations.  But  Mr.  Haddan 
endeavors  to  make  it  appear  that  the  only  reason 
for  not  contesting  Bonner's  answer  was  purely  a  civil 
law  reason.  He  says,  *'  This  objection  was  regarded 
by  the  lawyers  as  so  strong  legally  that,  on  the  one 
hand,  Bonner's  case  was  not  allowed  to  come  to  an 
issue,"  etc.  But  let  us  go  back  a  little.  The  com- 
mission containing  the  supplying  clause  was  written 
December  6,  1559,  four  years  before  Bonner's  cavils 
astonished  the  lawyers.  It  was,  when  written,  sub- 
mitted by  the  queen  to  the  highest  legal  authorities 
in  England,  "  divers  doctors  of  both  faculties,"  who 
declared  and  recorded  their  opinion  : 

That  by  this  commission  in  this  forme  pennid  as  well  as  the 
Queene's  Majestic  may  lawfully  auctorize  the  p'sons  within 
namid  to  the  effects  specified  as  the  said  p'sons  maye  exercise 
the  acte  of  confirminge  and  consecratinge  in  the  same  to  them 
committid. 

Will'am  Maye,  Henry  Harvey, 

Robert  Weston,  Thomas  Yall, 

Edward  Leedes,  Nicholas  Bullingham.     ' 

Now,  is  it  not  a  little  remarkable  that  a  judicial 
declarationof  the  highest  importance  of  six  eminent 
lawyers  of  canon  and  civil  law,  affirming  a  certain 
royal  writ  to  be  lawful — which  writ,  by  the  mere  au- 
thority of  the  queen,  vested  in  her  by  Parliament, 
was  in  itself  lawful — should  be  utterly  set  aside  by 


58  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

one  man,  not  a  lawyer,  as  unlawful?  Is  it  not  very 
singular  that  these  jurists  did  not  know  the  acts  of 
Parliament  passed  at  that  time,  or  that  they  did  not 
know  that  the  supplying  clause  and  the  royal  su- 
premacy supplied,  according  to  intent  and  letter, 
every  possible  defect  in  law,  and  that,  therefore, 
Bonner  had  no  defense  before  the  law  ?  Does  it 
not  really  border  on  the  marvelous,  if  they  did  not 
know  these  things,  that  they  should  have  declared 
the  queen's  mandate  with  this  clause  to  have  been 
lawful ;  and  that,  if  they  did  not  know  these  simple 
and  elementary  facts,  they  nevertheless,  these  crown 
lawyers,  only  four  years  afterward  should  consider 
Bonner's  legal  objections  to  be  *'  so  strong  "  that 
they  could  not  bring  him  to  trial? 

Haddan's  attempt  to  divert  attention  from  the 
real  purpose  of  the  supplying  clause,  and  to  make 
it  appear  that  astute  and  learned  lawyers,  with  all 
the  support  of  the  crown  at  their  back,  were  turned 
down  by  the  legal  cavilings  of  a  prisoner,  cannot  be 
considered  a  masterful  piece  of  reasoning.  If  this 
clause  was  not  lawful  or  authoritative  in  respect  to 
this  matter,  in  what  other  respect  was  it  or  could  it 
have  been  lawful  and  finally  authoritative  ?  What 
was  the  supplying  clause  for  ?  Moreover,  Mr.  Had- 
dan's argument  makes  the  power  of  the  royal  su- 
premacy to  be  no  power,  and  the  supremacy  itself 
to  be  no  supremacy,  for  the  reason  that  the  strongest 
document  that  the  crown  could  draw  up  was  of  no 


FOUNDERS   OF   THE    HIERARCHY.  59 

avail,  could  not  give  authority  or  supply  defects,  al- 
though crown  lawyers  decreed  that  it  could.  The 
argument  is,  also,  suicidal ;  for  if  Bonner's  objections 
were  so  strong  legally  that  he  could  not  be  brought 
to  trial,  how  could  this  supplying  clause  relieve  Par- 
ker's consecrators  of  ecclesiastical  disabilities?  Could 
Bonner  make  no  cavil  on  the  side  of  canon  law  as 
strong  as  the  objection  he  did  make  from  the  stand- 
point of  civil  law  ?  The  truth  in  the  case  is,  there 
were  doubts  concerning  the  ecclesiastical  ability  of 
the  consecrators  to  perform  the  act  of  consecration, 
and  these  doubts  were  more  to  be  feared  if  discussed 
openly  than  the  legal  technicalities  of  Bonner ;  for 
Bishop  Home  was  not  the  only  personage  in  the 
kingdom  who  could  offer  him  the  oath  on  the  royal 
supremacy.  Queen  Elizabeth  herself,  if  we  may  rely 
on  the  author  of  that  standard  work,  The  Queens  of 
England^^  was  by  no  means  free  from  doubt,  and 
seemed  to  have  remained  doubtful  of  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  hierarchy  she  had  created.  Quoting 
Lady  Southwell  on  the  last  days  of  Elizabeth,  she 
says : 

When  she  was  near  her  end  the  council  sent  to  her  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury  and  other  prelates,  at  the  sight  of  which 
she  was  much  offended,  cholerically  rating  them,  bidding  them 
"  be  packing,"  saying  she  was  no  atheist,  but  she  knew  full 
well  they  were  but  hedge  priests. 

'  Miss  Strickland,  vii,  p.  223.  See  also  Froiide.  History  of  Eng^ 
lanJ,  p.  568  :  "  She  called  them  doctors,  as  the  highest  title  to  which 
she  considered  them  to  have  any  right." 


6o  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

When  we  consider  the  chaotic  condition  of  re- 
ligious opinion  in  those  stirring  days  of  the  Refor- 
mation it  is  not  surprising  that  there  should  have 
been  grave  doubts  among  all  classes  concerning  the 
genuineness  of  the  new  priesthood.  The  conflict 
between  Romanism  and  Protestantism  was  at  its 
highest ;  it  was  difficult  to  shake  off"  the  influence  of 
centuries  of  teaching  relative  to  the  priesthood  and 
the  powers  of  episcopacy  ;  confusion  in  the  beliefs  of 
the  Reformers  themselves  was  as  the  discordant 
sounds  of  jangling  bells ;  between  the  Roman 
views  of  the  queen  concerning  the  ministry  and  the 
Genevan  tenets  of  some  of  her  leading  bishops  there 
was  little  harmony,  all  of  which  is  painfully  man- 
ifest in  the  correspondence  carried  on  between  the 
Reformers  in  England  and  their  brethren  in  Ger- 
many and  Switzerland. 

From  the  ^'  Order  of  Rites  and  Ceremonies,"  in 
Parker's  register,  we  learn  that  William  Barlow  was 
the  presiding  bishop,  and  was  in  fact  and  theory  the 
chief  consecrator. 

The  gospels  at  length  finished,  the  elect  of  Here- 
ford, the  Suffragan  of  Bedford,  and  Miles  Coverdale, 
of  whom  above,  conducted  the  archbishop  before  the 
elect  of  Chichester  [Barlow],  seated  in  a  chair  at  the 
table,  with  these  words : 

Reverend  father  in  God,  we  offer  and  present  to  you  this 
pious  and  learned  man,  that  he  may  be  consecrated  archbishop. 

Mr.    Haddan  remarks  in  a  footnote,  *'  It  will  be 


FOUNDERS   OF  THE   HIERARCHY.  6 1 

observed  that  no  distinction  is  made  between  the 
presiding  bishop  and  the  assistant  bishops."  The 
purpose  of  the  statement,  and  also  of  the  register,  is 
to  bring  out  the  fact  that  all  four  laid  hands  on  Par- 
ker and  that  they  were,  therefore,  all  equally  consecra- 
tors.  We  cannot  escape  the  conviction  that  this  is 
an  afterthought  and  is  not  according  to  facts.  There 
never  was  a  record  like  it,  before  or  since.  The 
register  states  that  the  Ordinal  of  Edward  VI  was 
used ;  and  yet  in  this  important  particular  these 
bishops,  without  any  reason,  depart  from  the  Ordinal, 
from  the  usage  of  ages  in  every  land,  from  the  im- 
memorial usage  in  England,  and  devise  a  method  of 
their  own,  unknown  in  any  Church  in  any  age,  and 
one  that  is  unauthorized  by  any  law,  civil  or  ca- 
nonical. From  that  day  to  this  there  has  not  been 
an  ordination  like  it,  and  there  never  was  one  be- 
fore it.  He  who  wrote  this  part  of  the  register  seems 
to  have  balanced  between  the  fact  of  Barlow's  being 
the  consecrator  and  the  less  harmful  alternative  that 
all  four  were  equal  in  the  ordination.  But  we  do 
not  believe  that  these  bishops  disregarded  the  Ed- 
wardine  Ordinal  without  cause  and  invented  a  method 
of  their  own.  The  register  comes  near  enough  to 
the  facts  to  show  that  William  Barlow  was  the  presid- 
ing bishop,  which  would  put  him  in  place  of  a  chief 
consecrator,  for  a  presiding  bishop  is  not  to  keep 
order  or  to  be  a  master  of  ceremonies ;  and  to  him 
the  others  presented  Parker  for  consecration  accord- 
5 


62  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

ing  to  the  Ordinal,  which  orders  that  after  the  gospel 
and  credo  are  ended  the  elected  bishop  or  arch- 
bishop "  shall  be  presented  ...  to  the  archbishop, 
or  to  some  other  bishop  appointed  by  his  commis- 
sion,the  bishops  presenting  saying,"  etc.  The  bishop 
or  archbishop  then  submits  certain  questions  and  re- 
ceives response.  "  Then  the  archbishop  and  bishops 
present  shall  lay  their  hands  upon  the  head  of  the 
elect  bishop,  the  archbishop  saying,"  etc.  The  be- 
Hef  that  Barlow  filled  this  office  is  supported  also 
by  the  fact,  adduced  by  Canon  Estcourt,  that  among 
the  Fox  manuscripts  in  the  British  Museum  is  a 
document  which  he  places  alongside  the  Parker 
register,  and  which  distinctly  states  that  William 
Barlow  was  the  consecrating  bishop. 

But  when  was  William  Barlow  himself  ever  conse- 
crated bishop  ?     Where  ?     By  whom  ? 

Barlow  on  Parker  his  hands  he  laid, 
But  who  laid  hands  on  him  ? 

It  is  when  an  attempt  is  made  to  answer  these 
vital  questions  that  the  reason  for  denying  the  chief 
place  to  Bishop  Barlow  in  transmitting  the  grace  of 
apostolical  succession  is  made  manifest. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Bailey  produces  copies  of  all  the 
documents  relating  to  the  episcopacy  of  Barlow,  and 
on  these  we  suppose  we  may  confidently  rely,  since 
he  relies  upon  them  in  his  defense  of  the  validity  of 
Anglican  orders.    What  then  are  the  historical  facts  ? 

William  Barlow  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII  was 


FOUNDERS    OF   THE    HIERARCHY.  63 

prior  of  the  monastery  of  Bisham,  of  the  order  of 
St.  Augustine.  A  faithful  servant  of  the  king,  his 
usefulness  to  Henry  in  his  conflict  with  Rome  was 
no  doubt  agreeable  to  his  religious  convictions.  As 
to  his  views  of  ministerial  orders,  they  were  exceed- 
ing loose,  and  would  most  surely  be  abhorred  now  by 
High  Church  apologists,  who  are  very  willing,  never- 
theless, to  profit  by  his  acts.  In  1536-7  he  was  com- 
plained of  to  the  king's  council  for  declaring  *'  that 
wheresoever  two  or  three  simple  persons,  as  two  cob- 
blers or  weavers,  were  in  company  and  elected  in  the 
name  of  God,  there  was  the  true  Church  of  God ;  " 
also,  ''that  if  the  king's  grace,  being  supreme  head 
of  the  Church  in  England,  did  choose,  denominate, 
and  elect  any  layman  to  be  a  bishop,  that  he  so 
chosen  should  be  as  good  a  bishop  as  he  is,  or  the 
best  in  England."  In  answer  to  certain  questions 
of  Cranmer,  as  we  shall  see,  he  held  that  bishops 
have  no  authority  to  ordain  except  it  be  given  by 
the  king ;  that  consecration  is  unnecessary  and  ap- 
pointment only  is  sufficient ;  and  that  bishops  and 
priests  at  the  beginning  were  all  one.  Anglicans 
seem  to  have  good  reason  for  their  dislike  of  Barlow 
as  consecrator  of  Parker. 

In  1534,  October  3,  under  the  title  of  "  Mr.  Barlo, 
Prior  of  Bisham,"  he  was  sent  by  Henry  VIII  on 
an  embassy  to  King  James  V  of  Scotland.  The 
episcopal  see  of  St.  Asaph  becoming  vacant  by  the 
death  of  its  bishop.  King  Henry  issued  a  conge  cfSlire 


64  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

on  the  7tli  of  January,  1536,  present  style,  in  favor 
of  Barlow,  and  on  the  sixteenth  of  the  same  month 
he  was  elected  to  that  see.  The  temporalities  of  the 
diocese  were  granted  him  February  2,  same  year, 
and  the  royal  assent,  peculiarly  worded,  was  given 
February  22  for  his  consecration.  But  no  mandate 
for  his  consecration  is  anywhere  to  be  found,  if  such 
a  commission  was  ever  issued.*  During  this  time 
Barlow  was  in  Scotland,  where  he  had  been  sent  on  a 
second  embassy.  In  proof  of  this,  letters  among  State 
papers  in  the  public  record  office  are  put  in  evidence. 

It  will  be  observed  that  up  to  this  date  Barlow  is 
only  bishop  elect  of  St.  Asaph,  not  consecrated. 

On  February  18,  same  year  (1536),  Richard  Raw- 
lins, Bishop  of  St.  David's,  died.     Mr.  Bailey  says : 

Into  his  place  Barlow  was  substituted  with  such  great  haste 
that  on  the  tenth  of  the  following  April  his  election  by  the 
precentor  and  chapter  of  St.  David's  was  completed,^  and  his 
confirmation  took  place  on  the  twenty-first. 

Up  to  this  date,  then,  he  is  neither  consecrated  Bishop 
of  St.  Asaph,  to  which  he  was  first  elected,  nor  of 
St.  David's,  to  which  he  has  now  been  elected  and 
confirmed.     But  a    strange    thing    now   makes    its 

'  "  The  temporalities  of  the  see  were  restored  February  2,  1535-6 
(Wood,  Athen.  Oxon.),  and  he  was  confirmed  by  proxy  either  Febru- 
ary 22  or  23  ;  for  the  archbishop's  commission  to  confirm  is  dated 
February  22,  and  the  certificate  to  the  king  of  the  confirmation 
February  23  of  the  same  year  [Cranmers  Register,  i88a,  21  la) ;  but 
no  mandate  to  consecrate  is  to  be  found — merely  the  royal  assent." — 
Bailey,  p.  69. 

'^  Cranmers  ReiTister, 


FOUNDERS    OF   THE    HIERARCHY.  65 

appearance  and  shows  how  h'ghtly  Cranmer  himself 
esteemed  canonical  ordination.  In  the  certificate 
of  Barlow's  confirmation  to  this  see  of  St.  David's 
returned  by  Cranmer,  and  found  in  his  register  (fol. 
205),  as  given  by  Bailey,  Barlow  is  absolutely  styled 
full  Bishop  of  St.  Asaph :  **  Whereas  we  have  con- 
firmed the  election  lately  made  of  the  reverend 
father,  the  Lord  William  Barlowe,  lately  Bishop  of 
St.  Asaph." 

Was  it  at  this  point  that  Barlow's  usurpation  of 
episcopacy  began  ?  Here  in  a  legal  document  he  is 
declared  by  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  Thomas 
Cranmer,  to  be  a  bishop,  and  his  see  is  named,  when 
as  a  matter  of  history  he  has  so  far  never  been  con- 
secrated at  all.  This  fact  is  further  proved,  if  further 
proof  Avere  necessary,  from  a  royal  writ,  dated  May 
29,  1536,  granting  a  conge  d^elire  for  a  bishop  to  the 
"  see  of  St.  Asaph,  now  destitute  of  the  solace  of 
a  pastor  by  the  free  translation  of  William  Barlowe, 
last  bishop  elect  of  the  same,"  and  also  by  the  man- 
date to  consecrate  Robert  Wharton  to  the  bishopric 
of  St.  Asaph,  "  lately  vacant  by  the  free  translation 
of  William  Barlowe,  last  bishop  elect  of  the  same." 

Barlow  is  now,  April  21,  1536,  confirmed  to  the 
sec  of  St.  David's.  On  the  twenty-fifth  of  that 
month  the  temporalities  of  the  bishopric  are  turned 
over  to  him  by  royal  writ,  "  certain  causes  and  con- 
siderations us  specially  moving,"  and  on  the  twenty- 
seventh  he  is  summoned  to  the  House  of  Lords  as 


66  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

actual  bishop.     But  when  and  where  was  he  conse- 
crated?    Who  were  his  consccrators  ? 

To  these  questions,  which  are  the  only  questions 
of  any  importance  in  this  case,  there  is  no  answer. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  deeper  we  investigate  the 
darker  the  subject  becomes,  and  we  walk  among 
shadows,  dealing  with  misrepresentations  and  trou- 
blesome evasions.  For  instance.  Barlow,  in  his 
documents  for  St.  David's,  calls  himself  Bishop  of 
St.  Asaph.  But  Haddan,  who  strains  every  point 
in  his  favor,  is  forced  by  the  evidence  to  admit 
that  "  the  documents  relating  to  his  successor  at 
St.  Asaph,  dated  in  May,  June,  and  July,  1 536,  seem 
to  exclude  the  possibility  of  his  having  been  conse- 
crated to  that  see  ;  as  they,  on  the  one  hand,  speak 
of  him  throughout  as  merely  episcopus  Assavensis 
clcctuSy  and,  on  the  other,  they  describe  the  vacancy 
as  occurring — not  by  his  'translation,*  as  if  he  had 
been  a  consecrated  bishop — per  ccssioneiiiy  diuiissi- 
o?iC7n,  sen  transmiitationeui  dni.  W.  Barloive  episcopi- 
ibidem  clecti ;  as  though  the  registrars  had  been  at 
a  loss  for  a  term  to  describe  the  transference  from 
one  see  to  another  of  a  person  simply  confirmed  to. 
the  first,  but  not  consecrated." 

To  the  see  of  St.  David's,  then,  he  comes  as  a 
consecrated  bishop,  and  is  ever  afterward  supposed 
to  be  such,  and  is  accepted  as  such,  when,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  was  ever  con- 
secrated at  all,  but  every  particle  of  proof  tending  to 


FOUNDERS   OF   THE   HIERARCHY.  G'J 

demonstrate  the  opposite.  He  was  bishop  solely  by- 
King  Henry's  appointment.  Any  number  of  pro- 
motions, translations,  or  summonses  to  Parliament 
after  this  assumption  of  the  episcopal  office  prove 
nothing  as  to  the  essential  fact  of  consecration.  Nor 
is  it  anything  to  the  point  that  he  exercised  his  office 
under  Edward  VI,  or  that  he  was  deprived  by 
Queen  Mary,  or  that  he  was  again  recognized  under 
Queen  Elizabeth.  For  it  is  not  likely  that,  having 
been  described  in  State  papers  and  royal  writs  under 
Henry  as  bishop,  any  attempt  would  be  made 
by  those  who  cared  as  little  as  himself  about  the 
validity  of  orders  to  contest  the  record.  Francis 
Mason's  efforts,  also,  to  clear  away  the  doubts  that 
settle  down,  like  a  heavy  fog,  on  Barlow's  ordination 
serve  only  to  confirm  one  in  the  belief  that  such  labor 
is  in  very  truth  a  hopeless  task.  In  speaking  of  the 
temporalities  being  granted  Barlow  on  his  entrance 
to  the  see  of  St.  David's,  he  says  : 

If  he  had  not  as  yet  received  episcopal  consecration  he 
would  not  have  been  capable  of  this  benefice,  nor  would  he 
have  been  able  to  receive  this  priory  in  his  own  name  and 
those  of  his  successors. 

Mason  regarded  this  as  strong  proof  that  Barlow 
must  have  been  ordained,  and  Anglican  writers 
make  the  most  of  it  possible.  But,  neverthe- 
less, like  many  other  such  proofs,  its  real  worth- 
lessness  is  made  manifest  when  unimpeachable 
evidence    from    royal    writs   and    State    papers    of 


68  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

various  kinds  is  produced  showing  without  any 
doubt  that,  whether  he  could  or  could  not  legally, 
had  the  truth  been  known  and  the  law  enforced, 
have  received  the  temporalities,  he  did  receive  the 
temporalities  of  the  see  of  St.  Asaph  before  he  was 
consecrated.  For  we  have  seen  from  the  documents 
that  they  were  restored  to  him  February  2,  1536,  at 
which  date  he  was  not  even  confir^ned  to  the  see, 
to  say  nothing  of  being  consecrated.  Therefore, 
what  could  have  been  done,  and  was  done,  by 
royal  authority,  whether  right  or  wrong,  could 
have  been  done  by  the  same  authority  with  refer- 
ence to  the  priory  of  Bisham  or  the  temporalities 
of  St.  David's.  The  evidence  in  the  case,  when 
summed  up,  leads  to  no  other  conclusion  than  that 
William  Barlow,  the  ordainer  of  Archbishop  Parker, 
was  himself  never  ordained  to  the  episcopal  office. 

The  episcopal  character  of  Barlow's  assistants. 
Dr.  Scory,  Miles  Coverdale,  and  John  Hodgkins, 
need  not  detain  us.  Hodgkins  was  only  a  suffragan 
bishop;  and  if  we  do  not  emphasize  the  statement 
of  the  celebrated  Field,  in  his  Book  of  the  CJntrcJi^ 
that  in  the  early  Church  suffragans  were  not  allowed 
to  meddle  with  ordination,  it  is  that  we  may  call 
attention  to  a  matter  of  more  importance.  A  suf- 
fragan has  no  authority  or  jurisdiction  except  what 
is  given  him  by  the  bishop  or  archbishop.  Hodg- 
kins was  suffragan  in  title  only,  not  in  reality  ;  hence 
he  could  give  no  jurisdiction  to  one  who  w^as  to  be 


FOUNDERS    OF   THE    HIERARCHY.  69 

his  chief  and  from  whom  he  himself  must  derive  his 
authority.  To  this  it  will  be  answered  that  he  had 
been  suffragan  bishop  but  had  been  deprived  under 
Mary.  But  if  it  was  lawful  for  Elizabeth  to  deprive 
bishops  of  their  sees,  was  it  not  also  lawful  for  Mary? 
Doctor  Scory  and  Miles  Coverdale  were  raised  to 
the  episcopacy  in  the  chaotic  days  of  Edward  VI. 
Their  ordination  was  by  Archbishop  Cranmer,  as- 
sisted by  Bishop  Ridley*  and  Hodgkins,  Suffragan 
of  Bedford,  and  according  to  the  Edwardine  Ordinal. 
Now,  it  is  well  known  that  that  Ordinal  recognized 
no  distinction  in  order  between  a  bishop  and  a  pres- 
byter. This  is  acknowledged  by  Bishop  Burnet, 
who  says  that  in  that  Ordinal  there  was  ''  no  express 
mention  made  in  the  words  in  ordaining  them  that 
it  was  for  one  or  the  other  office."  Further,  we  know 
that  Cranmer,  who  ordained  these  consecrators  of 
Parker,  did  not  himself  believe  in  three  distinct 
orders,  or  that  ordination  was  absolutely  necessary. 
What  opinion,  then,  can  defenders  of  the  Anglican 
claims  have  of  the  consecration  of  Scory  and  Cover- 
dale  ?  Did  they  receive  from  Cranmer  the  grace  of 
apostolical  succession  ?  Did  he  or  the  martyr  Rid- 
ley intend  to  convey  such  grace  ?  Such,  then, are 
the  doubts  that  shroud  the  episcopal  character  of 
the  consecrators  of  Matthew  Parker. 

'  Fox  relates  in  his  Book  of  Martyrs  that  wlien  Bishops  Latimer 
and  Ridley  were  executed  the  Roman  Bishop  of  Gloucester  declared 
\hcm  degraded  from  tiic  priestliood,  not  from  the  episcopacy. 


yo  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 


CHAPTER  IV. 
The  Doctrine  of  Orders  in  the  Anglican  Ordinal* 

THE  Reformers  who  founded  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land did  not  revolt  simply  against  the  tyranny 
and  usurpations  of  Rome ;  but  deeper  than  any 
question  of  aggression  or  of  papal  supremacy  was 
the  conviction  that  the  Church  of  Rome,  in  its  awful 
corruption  of  faith  and  morals,  had  become  the  Anti- 
christ. To  them  it  was  the  scarlet  woman  of  Reve- 
lation, the  mother  of  harlots,  the  sink  of  all  spiritual 
abomination.  Hence  the  Reformation  in  England 
was  designed  to  be,  not  a  protest  merely  against  pa- 
pal power,  but  a  cleansing  of  the  temple  of  God ;  and, 
in  the  furtherance  of  this,  all  doctrines,  rites,  and 
ceremonies  in  which  the  spirit  of  Romanism  was  in- 
fused, or  which  would  be  interpreted  as  retaining 
any  of  the  doctrinal  ideas  peculiar  to  the  Roman 
Church,  were  rejected  as  rapidly  as  circumstances 
would  permit,  with  all  the  grosser  superstitions  fos- 
tered by  that  Church  to  the  scandal  of  Christian 
truth. 

Among  the  divine  offices  to  be  reformed  was  the 
giving  of  holy  orders.  In  November,  1550,  a  bill 
for  the  form  of  ordaining  ministers  was  introduced 
in  the   House  of  Lords  and   agreed  to,  the  Roman 


ORDERS    IN    THE   ANGLICAN    ORDINAL.  7 1 

Bishops  of  Durham,  Carlisle,  Worcester,  Chichester, 
and  Westminster  dissenting.  They  well  knew  that 
the  reform  contemplated  meant  an  utter  rejection 
of  the  doctrine  of  orders  as  held  by  Rome,  and  a 
Protestantizing  of  the  ministry — that  is,  a  new  in- 
stitution  of  the  ministry  on  purely  evangelical  prin- 
ciples. The  substance  of  the  bill  was  that  six  prel- 
ates and  six  theologians,  to  be  named  by  the  king 
and  authorized  by  a  warrant  under  the  great  seal, 
should  draw  up  a  form  of  ordination,  and  that  that 
form  should  be  the  only  one  used  after  the  follow- 
ing April.  The  commission  was  appointed.  There 
were  several  rituals  in  use,  the  old  Sarum  pontifical, 
the  rituals  of  Lincoln  and  of  York ;  but  these  were 
set  aside,  for  the  reason  that  a  ministry  of  an  entirely 
different  character  from  that  in  the  ordination  of 
which  those  rituals  had  been  used  was  designed,  and 
a  new  ritual  was  devised,  presented  to  Parliament, 
and  adopted.  That  ritual  was  known  as  the  Ordinal 
of  Edward  VI,  and  was  used  by  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land in  the  ordination  of  her  ministers  from  1549  till 
1662,  a  space  of  one  hundred  and  thirteen  years. 
That  Ordinal  is  the  ritual  used  from  the  beginning, 
with  a  few  changes,  chiefly  abbreviations,  by  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  ordination  of 
her  bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons.  It  is  anti- 
sacerdotal,  and  knows  nothing  of  a  mystical,  trans- 
mitted grace  or  of  three  orders  in  the  ministry  by 
divine  enactment. 


72  THE    HISTORIC    ElTSCOrATE. 

It  is  our  purpose,  then,  to  show  that  the  ritual  of 
the  Church  of  England,  before  that  ritual  was  changed 
in  1662  to  its  present  form,  is  a  standing  witness 
against  the  present  Anglican  theory  of  the  historic 
episcopate — first,  in  that  it  neither  confers  nor  recog- 
nizes a  priestly  character  in  those  ordained  ;  and, 
secondly,  that  it  abolishes  all  distinctions  of  order 
between  presbyter  and  bishop  by  divine  injunction. 
It  is  necessary  to  do  this,  for,  notwithstanding  the 
changes  made  in  the  Ordinal  by  convocation  in  1662, 
an  earnest  effort  is  made  to  make  it  appear  that  the 
doctrine  of  orders  in  the  Church  of  England  during 
the  Reformation,  when  that  Church  was  organized, 
is  identical  with  the  High  Church  views  held  now; 
that  its  ministers  were  really  ordained  priests  ;  that 
a  mystical,  sacerdotal  grace  was  believed  to  be  con- 
ferred in  ordination  ;  that  there  were  three  distinct 
orders  in  the  Christian  ministry;  and  that  episcopal 
ordination  was  considered  essential  to  valid  minis- 
terial functions.  This  position,  unhistorical  as  it  is, 
Anglicans  are  compelled  by  their  Romish  principles 
to  assume.  For  it  is  evident  that  if  this  was  not  the 
explicit  teaching  of  the  Church  of  England  at  its 
establishment ;  if  its  founders  did  not  believe  in  three 
distinct  ovd^i's  jure  divino;  if  they  did  not  believe 
that  any  sacramental  grace  or  mystical  character  was 
impressed  orconferred  in  ordination — if,  in  one  word, 
the  Reformers  who  founded  the  Church  of  England 
did  not  hold  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of  orders. 


ORDERS    IN    THE   ANGLICAN    ORDINAL.  73 

minus  papal  supremacy,  now  maintained  by  High 
Anglicans — then  all  claims  to  an  historic  episcopate 
in  the  Church  of  England  and  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  are  without  foundation,  and  the  min- 
istry in  those  Churches  have  no  better  credentials  to 
show  than  have  the  ministry  of  other  Churches,  and 
their  claims  to  apostolical  succession  are  wholly 
groundless  except  in  the  same  sense  claimed  by 
other  Churches. 

The  radical  difference  intended  by  the  Reformers 
between  the  old  ministry  and  the  new  can  be  fully 
comprehended,  not  only  by  what  they  put  into  the 
new  ritual  for  the  ordination  of  ministers,  but  also 
by  what  they  purposely  left  out.  They  were  men 
versed  in  the  writings  of  the  fathers,  in  ecclesiastical 
history,  in  theology,  in  the  originals  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  and  certainly  were  thoroughly  acquainted 
with  the  Roman  pontifical  and  the  forms  of  ordi- 
nation employed  in  the  ancient  diocesan  sees  of 
England.  It  is  therefore  very  singular  that  the 
Reformers,  if  they  believed  in  the  theories  now  ad- 
vocated by  Anglicans,  should  deliberately  reject 
these  old  Ordinals,  eliminate  everything  savoring 
of  the  old  ideas  relating  to  the  ministry,  and  should 
devise  an  Ordinal  of  their  own,  which  was  so  thor- 
oughly opposed  to  anything  like  priesthood,  sacra- 
mental grace,  and  uninterrupted  succession  that 
that  same  Ofdinal,  with  a  change  here  and  there, 
and     abbreviated    as    to    the    prayers,    could    be 


74  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

adopted  and  is  used  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church. 

We  have  said  that  the  founders  of  the  English 
Church  rejected  the  ancient  Ordinals  ;  but  the  new 
Ordinal  was  based  upon  them  all,  omitting,  as  stated, 
the  distinctive  features  of  the  old  clerical  character. 
This  will  be  seen  on  consideration  of  the  following. 

In  the  Roman  pontifical  for  the  ordaining  of 
presbyters  we  read  :  **  For  it  behooveth  a  priest  \_sac- 
erdoteiit\  to  offer,  to  bless,  or  consecrate  \beiiedicerc\ 
to  preside,  to  preach,  to  baptize."  In  Edward's  Ordi- 
nal there  is  nothing  of  this,  but  instead  a  godly  ad- 
monition to  be  messengers,  pastors,  stewards  of  the 
Lord,  to  teach,  premonish,  to  feed  and  provide  for 
the  Lord's  family.  In  the  pontifical  there  is  prayer 
for  the  mystical  grace  of  priesthood,  and  distinct  ref- 
erence to  it  is  constantly  made :  **  Pour  upon  these 
thy  servants  the  benediction  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
the  virtue  of  priestly  grace  \ct  gratice  sacerdotalis 
infimdevirtiiteiji\  ;"  and  again,  '*  Whence  the  priestly 
degrees  and  Levitical  offices  by  mystical  sacraments 
grew  up."  "  In  like  manner  in  the  wilderness  thou 
didst  propagate  the  spirit  that  was  in  Moses  into  the 
minds  of  seventy  prudent  men."  *' So  also  thou 
didst  transfuse  into  Eleazar  and  Ithamar,  the  sons  of 
Aaron,  abundance  of  the  fullness  that  was  in  their 
father."  In  the  ordaining  are  these  words  :  "  Receive 
thou  power  to  offer  sacrifice  to  God,  and  to  celebrate 
masses  both  for  the  living  and  the   dead.     In  the 


ORDERS    IN   THE   ANGLICAN    ORDINAL.  75 

name,"  etc.  Nothing  of  this  is  to  be  found  in  the 
Edwardine  Ordinal.  We  have  there  simply,  "  Re- 
ceive the  Holy  Ghost.  Whose  sins  thou  dost  forgive 
they  are  forgiven,  and  whose  sins  thou  dost  retain 
they  are  retained  ;  and  be  thou  a  faithful  dispenser 
of  the  word  of  God,  and  of  his  holy  sacraments.  In 
the  name,**  etc.  And,  **  Take  thou  authority  to 
preach  the  word  of  God,  and  to  minister  the  holy 
sacraments  in  the  congregation."  The  Reformers 
knew  that  the  idea  of  priesthood  was  foreign  to  the 
New  Testament,  that  never  in  one  single  instance 
did  the  apostles  call  themselves  priests  or  designate 
any  minister  as  such ;  and  therefore  that  idea  and  its 
associations  were  rejected  by  them  in  the  devising 
of  the  Ordinal. 

The  unfortunate  Avord  **  priest,"  however,  was  re- 
tained, as  well  as  "presbyter ;"  but  the  word  gave  of- 
fense to  many  of  the  best  minds.  Hooker  wrote : 
"  In  truth,  the  word  *  presbyter  *  doth  seem  more  fit, 
and  in  propriety  of  speech  more  agreeable,  than 
*  priest '  with  the  drift  of  the  whole  Gospel  of  Jesus 
Christ ;  "  and  '*  What  better  title  could  then  be  given 
than  the  reverend  name  of  presbyters,  or  fatherly 
guides?  The  Holy  Ghost  throughout  the  body  of 
the  New  Testament,  making  so  much  mention  of 
them,  doth  not  anywhere  call  them  priests."* 

The  views  and  intentions  of  the  Reformers  con- 
cerning the  new  ministry  may  now  be  considered 
*  Ecclesiastical  Polity^  v,  78. 


76  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

further,  in  an  examination  of  the  second  statement 
that  the  Ordinal  does  not  recognize  three  orders  by 
divine  right. 

I      Mr.  Bailey  begins  his  defense  of  holy  orders  in  the 
Church  of  England  by  quoting  the  Preface  to  the  Or 
dinal,  published  1549: 

It  is  evident  unto  all  men  diligently  reading  Holy  Scripture 
and  ancient  authors  that,  from  the  apostles'  time,  there  hath  been 
these  three  orders  of  ministers  in  Christ's  Church — bishops, 
priests,  and  deacons. 

Triumphantly  is  this  declaration  paraded  by  High 
Chcurhmen  as  evidence  that  the  Reformed  ministry 
of  the  Established  Church  was  founded  upon  belief 
in  the  historic  episcopate.  But,  if  this  statement  is 
proof  of  that  fact,  Calvin  himself,  who  so  vigorously 
opposed  episcopacy,  must  be  credited  with  the  same 
belief  when,  in  his  Institutes,^  he  gives  the  origin 
of  bishops  and  quotes  Jerome.  The  real  matter  at 
issue  is  not  whether  these  Reformers  believed  in 
episcopacy,  but  whether  they  believed  in  bishops  by 
divine  right  as  distinct  from,  and  superior  to,  presby- 
ters. Now,  while  the  authors  of  the  Ordinal  recog- 
nized episcopal  form  of  government  to  have  been 
conformable  to  Holy  Scripture  and  of  ancient  cus- 
tom, as  did  also  the  founders  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  in  council  assembled  1784-5,  yet  they 
nowhere  assert  these  three  orders  of  bishops,  priests, 
and  deacons  to  be  three  separate  and  distinct  orders. 

^  Cook  iv,  chap,  iv,  2. 


ORDERS    IN    THE   ANGLICAN    ORDINAL,  7/ 

The  Ordinal  itself  is  testimony  to  this,  for  the  same 
lessons  read  in  the  ordination  of  a  presbyter  were 
read  in  the  consecration  of  a  bishop.  A  careful  con- 
sideration of  these  lessons  will  reveal  clearly  the 
views  held  by  those  who  framed  this  ritual : 

ORDERING   OF    PRIESTS    (PRESBYTERS). 

Ordinal  of  1549.  Ordinal  as  changed  \(i6-i. 

Acts  XX,  17-35.   "Take heed        4.  Eph.  iv,  7-13.     "  And  he 
therefore  unto  yourselves,  and    gave  some,  apostles ;  and  some, 
to  all  the  flock,  over  the  which    prophets  ;  and  some,  pastors," 
the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you    etc. 
overseers  [bishops],  to  feed  the 
Church  of  God,"  etc. 

I  Tim.  iii,  1-16.  "  This  is  a  7.  Matt,  ix,  36-38.  "When 
true  saying,  If  any  man  desir-  Jesus  saw  the  multitudes,  he 
eth  the  office  of  a  bishop,  he  de-  was  moved  with  compassion  on 
sireth  a  good  work.  A  bishop  them,  because  they  fainted,  and 
then  must  be  blameless,"  etc.      were  scattered,"  etc. 

Matt,    xxviii,   18-20.     "And       9.  John  x,  1-16. 
Jesus    came    and   spake  unto 
them,    saying,    All     power    is 
given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in 
earth.     Go  ye  therefore,"  etc. 

John  X,  1-16. 

John  XX,  19-23.  "  Then  said 
Jesus  to  them  again,  Peace  be 
unto  you  :  as  my  Father  hath 

sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you,"  14.  "  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost 
etc.  for   the  office    and    work  of  a 

"  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost,  priest  in  the  Church  of  God, 
Whose  sins  thou  dost,"  etc.  now  committed,"  etc. 

In  1662,  when  episcopacy  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land was  for  the  first  time  made  indispensable  to  a 
valid  ministry,  the  lessons   which   were  read  in  the 


78  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

ordination  of  a  presbyter,  and  which  spoke  of  presby- 
ters as  being  bishops,  were  used  exclusively  in  the 
ordinationof  bishops,and  the  lessons  from  the  Epistle 
to  the  Ephesians  and  from  Matthew's  gospel  (ix, 
36-38)  substituted  in  their  place,  as  has  been  shown 
in  the  preceding  page.  The  change  will  be  seen  in 
this : 

COMPARISON     OF     SCRIPTURE    TEXTS     IN     THE    CONSECRA- 
TION   OF    BISHOPS    AND    PRIESTS. 

For  the  ordaining  of  priests     For  the  ordaijting  of  bishops, 

{presbyters),  in  the  Ordinal  in  the  Ordinal  of  1662. 
of  I SA9- 

Acts  XX,  17-35.  Acts  XX,  17-35. 

I  Tim.  iii,  1-16.  i  Tim.iii,  1-16. 

Matt,  xxviii,  18-20.  Matt,  xxviii,  18-20. 

John  XX,  19-23.  John  xx,  19-23. 

John  X,  1-16.  John  xx,  15-17. 

From  a  comparison  of  these  texts  it  is  beyond 
question  that  a  distinction  of  order  between  presby- 
ter and  bishop  was  not  intended  to  be  taught,  but 
was,  on  the  contrary,  denied,  by  those  who  devised 
and  authorized  the  Ordinal.  From  1549  to  1662,  a 
period  of  one  hundred  and  thirteen  years,  the  Church 
of  England  applied  the  same  Scripture  texts  to  the 
order  of,  and  in  the  consecration  of,  a  presbyter,  that 
she  did  to  the  order  of,  and  in  the  consecration  of, 
a  bishop,  which  custom  can  be  accounted  for  in  no 
other  way  than  these  orders  were  regarded  by  her 
as  one  and  the  same  order. 

This  is  not  solely  our  individual  opinion,  derived 


ORDERS    IN    THE   ANGLICAN    ORDINAL.  79 

as  that  is  from  the  Ordinal  itself.  It  is  the  authorized 
and  published  statement  of  those  who  compiled  the 
Ordinal,  and  who  in  that  case  are  the  best  judges  of 
what  they  intended  should  be  understood  as  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church  of  England.  In  1 536  a  document, 
entitled  '*  A  Declaration  Made  of  the  Functions  and 
Divine  Institution  of  Bishops  and  Priests"  (Burnet, 
Addenda  to  Original  Records)^  was  issued  by  author- 
ity. At  the  close  of  that  declaration,  after  enumer- 
ating the  various  orders  which  had  grown  up  in  the 
Church  in  the  course  of  time,  the  distinct  affirmation 
is  made,  "  The  truth  is  that  in  the  New  Testament 
there  is  no  mention  made  of  any  degrees  or  distinc- 
tions in  orders,  but  only  of  deacons  or  ministers,  and 
of  priests  or  bishops."  This  document  was  signed  by 
the  highest  representatives  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, comprising  two  archbishops,  eleven  bishops, 
a  number  of  abbots  and  professors  of  sacred  theology, 
and  doctors  of  civil  and  of  ecclesiastical  law.  But,  as 
stated,  many  of  those  whose  names  are  signed  to 
this  document  were  those,  with  Archbishop  Cran- 
mer  at  their  head,  who  afterward  framed  the  Ordi- 
nal, which  therefore  expresses  the  unchanged,  au- 
thorized teaching  of  the  Church  of  England. 

There  is  another  record  of  this  period  which  fur- 
nishes further  proof  of  the  fact.  The  Ordinal  was 
published  in  1 549.  In  1 540,  only  four  years  after  the 
issue  of  the  above  declaration,  Archbishop  Cranmer 
presented   certain  questions  to  eminent  authorities 


80  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

ill  the  Church,  asking  which  were  first,  presbyters  or 
bishops  ;  whether  at  the  beginning  a  presbyter  made 
a  bishop  ;  whether  a  bishop  hath  authority  to  make 
a  priest  by  the  Scripture,  or  no ;  whether,  according 
to  the  New  Testament,  consecration  is  required  or 
only  appointment  be  sufficient.  We  copy  from  the 
Records  in  Burnet,  part  i,  book  iii. 

THE  RESOLUTIONS  OF  SEVERAL  BISHOPS  AND  DIVINES  OF 
SOME  QUESTIONS  CONCERNING  THE  SACRAMENTS.  .  .  . 
TAKEN  FROM  THE  ORIGINALS  UNDER  THEIR  OWN  HANDS. 

lo.  Qtiesii'on. 
Whether  bishops  or  priests  were  first  ?     And  if  the  priests 
were  first,  then  the  priest  made  the  bishop. 

Ansiver. 

The  bishops  and  priests  were  at  one  time,  and  were  no  two 
things,  but  both  one  office  in  the  beginning  of  Christ's  religion.* 

The  name  of  a  bishop  is  not  properly  a  name  of  order,  but  a 
name  of  office,  signifying  an  overseer."^ 

Agrecvzent. 
In  the  tenth  [as  above],  .  .  .  the  Bishop  of  St.  David's,  my  lord 
elect  of  Westminster,    Dr.  Cox,    Dr.  Redmayn,  say  tliat   "  at 
the  beginning  they  were  all  one."     [Other  bishops  had  other 
views,  but  tliey  were  opposed  to  Reformation.] 

1 1 .  Question. 
WTiether  a  bishop  hath   authority  to  make  a  priest  by  the 
Scripture,  or  no.-*     And  whether  any  other,  but  only  a  bishop, 
may  make  a  priest.'* 

Answer. 
A  bishop  may  make  a  priest  by  the  Scripture,  and  so  may 
princes  and  governors  also,  and  that  by  the  authority  of  God 
committed  to  them.^ 

'  Cranmer,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury. 
'  Lee,  Archbishop  of  York. 
^  Cranmer. 


ORDERS    IN    THE   ANGLICAN   ORDINAL.  8 1 

Agreevie7it. 
In  the  eleventh:  To  the  former  part  of  the  question  the 
Bishop  of  St.  David's  doth  answer  that  "  bishops  have  no  author- 
ity to  make  priests  without  they  be  authorized  of  the  Christian 
prince."  The  others,  all  of  them,  do  say  that  "  they  be  author- 
ized of  God."  .  .  .  To  the  second  part  the  answer  of  the  Bishop 
of  St.  David's  is  that  "  laymen  have  other  whiles  made  priests." 
.  .  .  Drs.  Tresham,  Crayford,  and  Cox  say  that  "  laymen  may 
make  priests  in  time  of  necessity." 

12.  Question. 
Whether  in  the  New  Testament  be  required  any  consecration 
of  a  bishop   and    priest,  or  only  appointing   to  the  office  be 
sufficient  ? 

Answer. 

In  the  New  Testament,  he  that  is  appointed  to  be  a  bishop  or 
a  priest  needeth  no  consecration  by  the  Scripture,  for  election  or 
appointing  thereto  is  sufficient.* 

Agreement. 
In  the  twelfth  question,  where  it  is  asked  [as  above],  the 
Bishop  of  St.  David's  saith  that  "  only  the  appointing  ;"  Dr.  Cox, 
that  "  only  appointing  citm  manufn  imposiiio7ie  is  sufficient, 
without  consecration." 

Various  opinions  were   given   by  the  others,  the 

Romanistic    bishops    standing   by  the    old  beliefs. 

Truly  might  we   say  with    Stillingfleet,   respecting 

Cranmer's  views  of  episcopacy  : 

Thus  we  see  by  the  testimony  of  him  who  was  instrumental 
in  our  Reformation  that  he  owned  not  episcopacy  as  a  distinct 
order  from  presbytery  of  divine  right,  but  only  as  a  prudent 
constitution  of  the  civil  magistrate  for  the  better  governing  of 
the  Church. 

Are  we  to  imagine,  then,  that  the  Ordinal  de- 
vised by  him  and  those  of  like   belief  would  reflect 

'  Cranmer,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury. 


82  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

doctrines  directly  opposite  to  what  they  did  be- 
lieve ?  The  inevitable  conclusion  from  the  evidence 
before  us  is  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  founders  of 
the  Church  of  England  the  Christian  ministry  did 
not  consist  of  three  distinct  orders  by  divine  insti- 
tution ;  that  the  Ordinal  of  Edward  VI,  compiled 
by  these  founders  and  expressing  their  beliefs  for  a 
long  time  held,  did  not  teach  or  support  the  theory 
of  three  such  orders ;  and  that,  therefore,  the  doc- 
trine of  the  so-called  historic  episcopate  has  no 
foundation  in  the  Church  of  England,  and  is  a  later 
invention — but  too  late,  by  one  hundred  and  thir- 
teen years,  to  be  of  any  avail — to  supply  the  rejec- 
tion of  it  when  that  Church  was  established  by  law. 

From  the  ritual  we  may  turn  to  the  public  formu- 
laries of  faith.  If  the  doctrine  has  any  place  in  the 
Anglican  communion  we  may  hope  to  find  it  there. 

The  Forty-two  Articles  of  1553  were  the  work  of 
Cranmer,  based  on  some  earlier  Articles  which  he  had 
drawn  up  as  early  as  1548.*  Knowing  Cranmer's 
views,  it  is  not  likely  that  any  statement  contrary  to 
those  beliefs  would  be  found  in  the  Articles  which  he 
composed.  Further,  for  a  true  interpretation  of 
these  Articles  it  must  be  rem~embered  that  the  Re- 
formers on  the  Continent,  both  Lutherans  and  Cal- 
vinists,  had  a  commanding  influence  with  the  Re- 
formers in  England.     The   names  of  Calvin,  Peter 

1  Bishop  Hooper,  Letters,  February  27,  1549,  in  Original  Letter s, 
p.  71 ;  also  Buinet,  History  of  the  Reformation,  i,  766. 


ORDERS    IN    THE    ANGLICAN    ORDINAL.         83 

Martyr,  Bullinger,  and  many  divines  constantly  oc- 
cur in  the  history  of  this  period  in  relation  to  Church 
matters  in  England.  Cranmer's  letters  to  Melanch- 
thon,  Calvin,  and  Bullinger,  in  which  he  seeks  their 
aid  in  preparing  the  Articles,  indicate  the  high  es- 
teem in  which  these  Reform  leaders  were  held  by  the 
primate  of  the  English  Church.'  But  there  is  re- 
quired no  labored  proof  to  show  that  the  Reformers 
were  opposed  to  the  dogma  of  three  divinely  com- 
manded orders.  The  Lutherans,'  if  they  desired, 
could  have  received  episcopal  ordination  from  several 
prelates  who  were  friends  of  the  Reformation,  such 
as  Polentius,  the  Bishop  of  Samland  ;  P.  Speratus, 
of  Pomerania ;  Matthew,  the  Bishop  of  Dantzig ; 
Jagovius,  Bishop  of  Brandenburg ;  the  Archbishop  of 
Salzburg;  and  Hermann,  the  Archbishop  of  Cologne, 
who  was  conspicuous  for  his  efforts  in  aid  of  Reform. 
The  Calvinists  could  have  obtained  orders  from  a 
papal  nuncio,  Vergerio,  Bishop  of  Capo  dTstria,  who 
entered  the  ranks  of  the  Protestants,  as  did  his 
brother,  who  was  also  a  bishop.  Then  there  were 
the  Bishop  of  Nevers  and  the  Bishop  of  Troyes,  who 
left  the  Roman  Church  and  became  pastors  of  Re- 
formed churches,  the  latter  submitting  to  reordina- 

*  Strype,  Life  of  Cranmer,  pp.  407-413  ;  Nichols,  Commentary  on 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  Pref.,  5  ;  Strype,  Annals,  ii,  91 ;  Original 
Letters. 

"  Palmer,  On  the  Church,  note  by  Whittingham,  vol.  i,  p.  355, 
quoted  also  by  Bishop  Kip,  Double  Witness,  etc.;  but  see  McClin- 
tock  &  Strong,  in  loco. 


84  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

tion.  But  those  who  understood  the  subject  of 
succession  and  the  question  of  orders  the  best 
seemed  to  have  had  the  least  anxiety  about  them 
or  the  validity  of  nonepiscopal  ordination.  With 
these  Continental  Reformers  the  English  Reform- 
ers were  in  perfect  accord. 

In  the  Forty-two  Articles  of  Cranmer  there  is  not  a 
syllable  that  in  the  light  of  their  history  can  be  read 
in  favor  of  High  Church  notions.  The  Forty-nine 
Articles  of  1563  were  a  revision  of  these  Latin  Arti- 
cles of  1553.  The  revision  was  mainly  the  work  of 
Archbishop  Parker.  Among  the  bishops  in  the 
Canterbury  convocation  which  adopted  these  Arti- 
cles, sometimes  called  the  Elizabethan,  were  Home 
of  Winchester,  William  Barlow,  John  Scory,  Rich- 
ard Cox,  Edwin  Sandys,  Jewel  of  Salisbury,  and 
Parkhurst  of  Norwich,  all  of  whom  were  champions 
of  the  Reformation  and  desirous  of  eliminating  from 
the  Church  everything  that  savored  of  the  old  prac- 
tices, even  to  the  wearing  of  priestly  vestments. 
Home,  writing  to  Rudolph  Gaulter,  July,  1565, 
complains  that  '*  it  was  enjoyned  us  (who  had  not 
then  any  authority  either  to  make  laws  or  repeal 
them)  either  to  wear  the  caps  and  surplices  or  to 
give  place  to  others.  We  complied  with  this  in- 
junction, lest  our  enemies  should  take  possession  of 
the  places  deserted  by  ourselves."  Jewel,  in  his 
letter  to  Peter  Martyr,  gives  an  account  of  a  debate 
to  be  held  before  the  council,  *' wherein  nine  on  our 


ORDERS    IN    THE   ANGLICAN   ORDINAL.  85 

side,  namely,  Scory,  Cox,  Whitehead,  Sandys,  Grin- 

dal,  Home,  Aylmer,  a  Cambridge  man  of  the  name 

of  Gheast,  and  myself,"  are  to  be  set  over  against 

some  Roman  bishops.     The  second  proposition  to 

be  argued  was  **  that  every  provincial  Church,  even 

without  the  bidding  of  a  General  Council,  has  power 

either  to  establish  or  change  or  abrogate  ceremonies 

and  ecclesiastical   rites,  wherever  it   may  seem   to 

make  for  edification."     Parkhurst  says  in  an  epistle 

to  Henry  Bullinger,  May  21,  1559: 

The  pope  is  again  driven  from  England,  to  the  great  regret 
of  the  bishops  and  the  whole  tribe  of  shavelings.  .  .  .  The 
bishops  are  in  future  to  have  no  palaces,  estates,  or  country 
seats.  The  present  owners  are  to  enjoy  for  life  those  they  are 
now  in  possession  of.  They  are  worthy  of  being  suspended, 
not  only  from  their  office,  but  from  a  halter. 

Cox  to  Peter  Martyr  writes  : 

By  the  blessing  of  God  all  those  heads  of  religion  are  re- 
stored to  us  which  we  maintained  in  the  time  of  King  Edward. 
.  .  .  The  popish  priests  among  us  are  daily  relinquishing  their 
ministry,  lest,  as  they  say,  they  should  be  compelled  to  give 
their  sanction  to  heresies. 

It  is  not  very  likely  that  these  bishops  in  convoca- 
tion would  subscribe  to  Articles  of  Religion  which 
would  stultify  their  consciences.  It  must  be  remem- 
bered also  that  during  this  same  year  1563,  in  which 
the  convocation  of  Canterbury  met  and  adopted 
these  Articles,  the  Council  of  Trent  decreed,  in  op- 
position to  the  teachings  of  the  Reformers  every- 
where, that  *^  whosoever  shall  affirm  that  orders,  or 
holy  ordination,  is  not  truly  and  properly  a  sacra- 


86  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

mcnt  instituted  by  Christ  the  Lord,  ...  let  him  be 
anathema."  It  also  decreed  that  *'  whosoever  shall 
affirm  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  given  by  ordina- 
tion, and  therefore  that  bishops  say  in  vain,  '  Re- 
ceive the  Holy  Ghost,*  or  that  thereby  a  character 
is  not  impressed,  or  that  he  who  was  once  a  priest 
may  become  a  layman  again,  let  him  be  anathema." 
Is  it  probable  that  the  Reformed  bishops  at  Can- 
terbury would  adopt  any  article  in  their  Confession 
of  Faith  that  would  be  in  harmony  with  the  Roman- 
ist view  of  the  Christian  ministry  as  here  given,  and 
which  view  is  now  stoutly  maintained  by  High 
Churchmen?  Oi\  the  contrary,  the  twenty-fifth 
article  adopted  by  them,  and  which  settles  the  whole 
question,  expressly  declares  that  orders  is  not  to  be 
counted  a  sacrament  of  the  Gospel,  it  having  "  no 
visible  sign  or  ceremony  ordained  of  God."  The 
twenty-third  article  simply  affirms  that  it  is  not  law- 
ful for  one  to  exercise  the  office  of  the  ministry  un- 
less he  is  lawfully  called  to  the  same  ;  that  is,  no 
one  should  obtrude  himself  without  the  voice  of  the 
Church  into  the  ministry  of  that  Church.  Bishop 
Burnet,  in  his  comment  on  this  article,  says: 

It  leaves  the  matter  open  and  at  large  for  such  accidents  as 
had  happened,^  and  such  as  might  still  happen.  They  who 
drew  it  had  the  state  of  the  several  Churches  before  their  eyes 
that  had  been  differently  reformed  ;  and  although  their  own  had 

*  What  becomes  of  uninterrupted  succession  when  "  accidents  "  do 
happen  ? 


ORDERS    IN    THE    ANGLICAN    ORDINAL.         8/ 

been  less  forced  to  go  out  of  the  beaten  path  than  any  other, 
yet  they  knew  that  all  things  among  themselves  had  not  gone 
according  to  those  rules  that  ought  to  be  sacred  in  regular 
times  ;  necessity  has  no  law,  and  is  a  law  to  itself. 

This  comment  of  Burnet  is  both  a  confession  and 
a  defense.  It  shows  that  in  the  deliberate  judgment 
of  him  who  wrote  a  history  of  the  Reformation  in 
England,  and  who  had  access  to  the  records  of  that 
period,  the  founders  of  the  Church  of  England  did 
not  intend  by  anything  in  their  formularies  of  faith 
to  teach  apostolical  succession,  but  that,  on  the 
contrary,  they  placed  the  authority  to  preach  and 
minister  in  God's  house,  not  in  the  hands  of  bishops 
claiming  succession  as  the  warrant  for  their  act,  but 
in  the  hands  of  those  having  public  authority  in  the 
Church  ;  for  they  knew  that  accidents  had  happened 
to  the  succession,  and  that  the  necessity  of  Christ's 
Church,  rather  than  a  humanly  devised  historic 
episcopate  originating  in  canonical  rules,  must  in 
the  nature  of  things  be  the  fundamental  law. 


88  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 


CHAPTER  V. 
Teachings   of    the  ReformcfS* 

ANGLICAN  writers  endeavor  to  create  the  im- 
pression that  the  doctrine  of  the  historic  epis- 
copate now  held  by  the  Church  of  England  and  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  was  also  held  by  the 
English  Church  from  its  beginning  at  the  Reforma- 
tion. They  also  attempt  to  make  it  appear  that  the 
Anglican  ministry  was  established  on  that  doctrine. 
A  greater  perversion  of  history  it  would  be  difficult 
to  find.  As  well  might  Roman  Catholic  writers  af- 
firm the  Roman  Church  of  the  present,  with  its 
gorgeous  ritual,  intricate  ceremonies,  doctrines  of 
masses  and  indulgences,  its  infallibility,  mariolatry, 
and  hunger  for  imperialism,  to  be  the  same  Church, 
in  doctrine,  worship,  and  ceremony,  with  that  com- 
pany of  believers  which  gathered  in  the  tenement 
houses  on  the  banks  of  the  Tiber  to  hear  the  Epistle 
of  St.  Paul  to  the  Romans.  The  Roman  Catholic 
doctrine  of  orders  adopted  by  High  Churchmen  was 
utterly  discarded  by  the  founders  of  the  English 
Church,  and  to  emphasize  their  dissent  they  both 
maintained  fraternal  relations  with,  and  sought  as- 
sistance from,  the  Protestant,  episcopacy-rejecting 
Churches  of  Germany,  France,  and  Holland.    Bishop 


TEACHINGS    OF   THE    REFORMERS.  89 

Jewel,  under  date  of  January  8,  1566,  writes  to  Bui- 
linger  and  Lavater : 

The  contest  respecting  the  linen  surplice,  about  which  I 
doubt  not  you  have  heard,  either  from  our  friend  Abel  or  Park- 
hurst,  is  not  yet  at  rest.  That  matter  still  somewhat  disturbs 
weak  minds.  And  I  wish  that  all,  even  the  slightest,  vestiges 
of  popery  might  be  removed  from  our  Churches  and,  above  all, 
from  our  minds.  But  the  queen  at  this  time  is  unable  to  en- 
dure the  least  alteration  in  matters  of  religion. 

Bishop  Grindal,  under  date  of  August  27,  1566,  in  a 
letter  to  the  same  Henry  BuUinger,  forever  silences 
the  claims  of  those  who  insist  on  the  episcopate  as 
a  doctrine  of  the  English  Church,  if  they  would 
have  any  regard  for  historical  facts.     He  writes : 

We  who  are  nov/  bishops,'  on  our  first  return,  and  before  we 
entered  on  our  ministry,  contended  long  and  earnestly  for  the 
removal  of  those  things  that  have  occasioned  the  present  dis- 
pute ;  but  as  we  were  unable  to  prevail  either  with  the  queen 
or  the  Parliament  we  judged  it  best,  after  a  consultation  on  the 
subject,  not  to  desert  our  Churches  for  the  sake  of  a  few  cere- 
monies, and  those  not  unlawful  in  themselves,  especially  since 
the  pure  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  remained  in  all  its  integrity  and 
freedom  ;  in  which,  even  to  this  day  [notwithstanding  the  at- 
tempts of  many  to  the  contrary],  we  most  fully  agree  with  your 
Churches  and  with  the  Confession  ^  you  have  lately  set  forth. 

We  have  seen  that  the  Church  of  England,  neither 
in  her  Articles  of  Religion  nor  in  the  Ordinal  used 
by  her  authority  and  that  of  the  crown,  made  any 
claim  to  the  historic  episcopate  in  the  modern  sense, 
or   considered    her   bishops  to  be   a  distinct  order 

'  They  were  Cox,  Home,  rarkhurst,  Grindal,  Sandys,  Jewel,  and 
Bentham.  ^  The  Helvetic  Confession. 


90  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOrATE. 

from  presbyters.  It  has  also  been  seen  that  Arch- 
bishop Cranmer,  the  ruHng  genius  in  the  work  of 
Reform  under  Edward  VI,  expressly  repudiated,  with 
the  most  eminent  bishops  and  divines  of  that  forma- 
tive period,  the  dogma  of  three  divinely  constituted 
orders.  Nor  were  these  leaders  alone  in  their  be- 
lief. They  had  scriptural  and  historical  grounds  for 
their  faith.  In  the  Middle  Ages  bishops  and  canon- 
ists and  even  a  pope,  Urban  II,  had  declared  that  a 
bishop  was  not  superior  to  a  presbyter  in  the  power 
of  order.  Gieseler,  referring  to  the  well-known  pas- 
sage in  Jerome,  says,  ''  It  is  remarkable  how  long 
afterward  persons  maintained  this  view  of  the  origi- 
nal identity  of  bishops  and  presbyters,"  and  cites  as 
orthodox  authorities  Bernoldus  (1088),  the  defender 
of  Gregory  VII,  Pope  Urban  II,  Peter  Lombard, 
the  Glosses  in  the  Gratian  Decretals,  Archbishop 
Tudeschus  (1428),  and  the  papal  canonist,  John  Paul 
Lancellotus  (1563).  Not  till  the  Council  of  Trent 
had  decreed  in  its  twenty-third  session  (July,  1563) 
that  bishops  were  in  the  place  of  the  apostles — in 
apostolortnn  locum — and  were  superior  to  presbyters, 
was  this  ancient  belief  regarded  as  heretical. 

Therefore,  since  Anglo-Catholic  writers  endeavor 
to  pervert  or  to  pass  lightly  over  the  historic  truth 
in  their  zeal  to  propagate  their  doctrine  of  the  his- 
toric episcopate,  we  shall  now  set  forth  in  brief  the 
teachings  of  the  Reformers,  first  bishops,  and  de- 
fenders of  the  Church  of  EnHand. 


TEACHINGS   OF   THE    REFORMERS.  9 1 

Tyndale,  translator  of  the  English  Bible  and  mar- 
tyr (1536),  opposes  the  use  of  the  word  "  priest  "  as 
having  no  place  in  the  Gospel.  He  teaches  that 
consecration  is  not  necessary,  that  the  laying  on  of 
hands  by  the  apostles  was  not  after  the  manner  of 
the  dumb  blessing  of  Roman  bishops ;  they  sim- 
ply told  the  appointed  ministers  their  duty  and  gave 
them  a  charge  and  warned  them  to  be  faithful  in  the 
Lord's  business,  just  as  temporal  officers  are  chosen 
and  their  duty  read  to  them  and  they  admitted  to 
their  office  on  their  promise  to  'faithfully  discharge 
their  duties.^ 

Lambert  (1538),  in  his  trial  before  Henry  VHI, 
in  answer  to  the  question,  "  Dost  thou  believe  or- 
ders to  be  a  sacrament  of  the  Church?  "  replied  that 
in  the  primitive  times  there  were  only  two  offices 
in  the  Church  of  God,  bishops  and  deacons,  as  the 
Scriptures  testify,  and  as  was  manifested  by  Jerome 
in  his  Commentary  when  he  says  that  bishops  and 
priests  were  all  one.* 

Bradford,  the  martyr  (1555),  in  giving  an  account 
of  an  interview  he  had  while  in  prison  with  an  arch- 
deacon who  came  to  examine  him,  notes  his  replies 
to  certain  questions  relating  to  bishops  and  the  suc- 
cession : 

To  this  I  answered  that  the  ministry  of  God's  word  and  min- 
isters is  an  essential  point ;  but  to  translate  this  to  bishops  and 

'  Obedience  of  a  Christian  Man. 

^  Acts  and  Monuments,  Fox,  vol.  v,  p.  182. 


92  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

their  succession,  quoth  I,  is  a  plain  subtlety ;  and  therefore, 
quoth  I,  that  it  may  be  plain,  I  will  ask  you  a  question.  Tell 
me  whether  the  Scripture  know  any  difference  between  bishops 
and  ministers,  which  you  call  priests?     "  No,"  saith  he.' 

In  the  sixth  part  of  the  Catechism  by  Thomas 
Becon,  chaplain  to  Archbishop  Cranmer,  is  this  dia- 
logue : 

Father. — What  difference  is  there  between  a  bishop  and  a 
spiritual  minister.'^ 

So7i. — None  at  all  ;  their  office  is  one,  their  authority  and 
power  are  one.  And  therefore  St.  Paul  calleth  the  spiritual 
ministers  sometimes  bishops,  sometimes  elders,  sometimes 
pastors,  sometimes  teachers,  etc. 

Father. — What  is  "  bishop  "  in  English  } 

Son. — An  overseer  or  superintendent,  as  St.  Paul  said  to  the 
elders  or  bishops  of  Ephesus :  "  Take  heed  unto  yourselves, 
and  to  the  flock  over  whom  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you 
bishops,  overseers,  superintendents,  to  rule  or  feed  the  congre- 
gation of  God  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  blood." 

This  same  doctrine  is  taught  in  the  Institutions  of 
a  Christian  Man,  published  by  authority  in  1537. 

Hooper,  bishop  and  martyr  (1555),  in  his  Godly 

Confession  and  Protestation  of  the  Christian  Faithy 

writes : 

As  concerning  the  ministers  of  the  Church.  I  believe  that  the 
Church  is  bound  to  no  sort  of  people  or  any  ordinary  succession 
of  bishops,  cardinals,  or  such  like,  but  unto  the  word  of  God  only. 
.  .  .  And  because  the  Holy  Ghost  was  in  St.  Peter  at  Rome, 
and  in  many  other  godly  men  that  have  occupied  bishoprics  and 
dioceses,  therefore  the  same  gifts,  they  say,  must  needs  follow 
in  their  successors,  although,  indeed,  they  are  no  more  like  in 
zeal  or  diligence  than  Peter  to  Judas,  Balaam  to  Jeremiah, 
Annas  and  Caiaphas  to  John  and  James. 

'  Life  of  John  Bradford,  London,  1S55,  p.  192. 


TEACHINGS    OF   THE    REFORMERS.  93 

In  1563  Pilkington,  the  first  Protestant  Bishop  of 
Durham,  maintained  in  his  Confutation  that  the 
privileges  and  superiorities  which  bishops  have 
above  other  ministers  are  rather  granted  for  main- 
taining of  better  order  and  quietness  in  com- 
monwealths than  commanded  by  God  in  his 
word/ 

In  the  year  1562  Bishop  Jewel,  one  of  the 
brightest  ornaments  of  the  Church  of  England,  is- 
sued his  famous  Apology  of  tJie  Chin'ch  of  England^ 
which  occasioned  great  controversy  with  the  Ro- 
manists, and  was  soon  followed  by  the  no  less  valu- 
able Defense  of  the  Apology.  So  much  might  be 
quoted  from  this  celebrated  bishop,  whose  work  was 
ordered  to  be  chained  in  the  cathedrals  where  all 
might  read  it,  that  it  is  difficult  to  know  where  to 
begin  or  where  to  leave  off.  In  his  reply  to  Hard- 
ing, his  Roman  opponent,  he  grants  superiority  of 
primates  over  other  bishops,  but  affirms  that  it  was 
by  custom  rather  than  by  Scripture,  and  quotes  Je- 
rome, as  do  all  the  Reformers  when  writing  on  the 
constitution  of  the  Christian  ministry: 

Let  bishops  understand  that  they  are  above  priests  rather  of 
custom  than  of  any  truth  or  right  of  Christ's  institutions,  and 
that  they  ought  to  rule  the  Church  aUogether.  ...  St.  Au- 
gustine snith,  "  The  office  of  a  bishop  is  above  the  office  of  a 
priest  [not  by  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  but]  after  the 
manner  of  honor,  which  the  custom  of  the  Chujcj^i  hath  now 
obtained." 

'  JFor/cs,  Parker  Soc.  ed. 


94  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

Such,  then,  was  also  the  opinion  of  Jewel.  Unin- 
terrupted succession  as  a  necessary  element  of  a  true 
ministry  received  from  him  as  little  countenance. 
He  attacks  the  claim  of  the  Roman  Church  to  suc- 
cession, and,  what  should  be  carefully  noted  as  of 
the  utmost  significance,  affirms  that  the  Church  of 
England  does  not  depend  on  the  validity  of  the  or- 
ders of  those  who,  having  been  ordained  in  the 
Roman  Church,  became  the  founders  of  the  Church 
of  England.  If  none  of  those  ministers,  says  he, 
*'  nor  of  us,"  were  left  alive,  yet  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land would  not  flee  to  Louvain  for  Roman  orders, 
for  the  Church  would  have  power  to  institute  its 
own  orders,  as  '^  TertuUian  saith,  'And  we,  being  lay- 
men, are  we  not  priests? '  "     In  chapter  xi  he  says  : 

But  what  meant  M.  Harding  to  come  in  here  with  the  differ- 
ence between  priests  and  bisliops  ?  Thinketh  he  that  priests 
and  bishops  hold  only  by  tradition  ?  Or  is  it  so  horrible  a  blas- 
phemy as  he  maketh  it  to  say  that  by  the  Scriptures  of  God  a 
bishop  and  a  priest  are  all  one  ? 

He  then  cites  the  testimony  of  Cbrysostom,  Jerome, 
Augustine,  Ambrose,  and  of  the  Apostle  Paul  in 
proof  of  the  correctness  of  his  position. 

Nowcll's  CatccJiisni  appeared  in  1570,  and  was 
subscribed  by  all  the  bishops  in  the  lower  convo- 
cation. That  work  taught  the  doctrine  of  the 
Reformers. 

We  are  now  arrived  upon  a  new  epoch.  In  1572 
arose  the  controversy  over  Church  polity  between 


TEACHINGS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.      95 

the  Puritans  and  the  Churchmen  which  has  con- 
tinued to  this  day.  The  Puritans,  under  the  inspira- 
tion of  their  leaders,  who  had  been  refugees  among 
the  Reformed  Churches  of  Geneva,  Zurich,  and  Stras- 
burg,  were  impatient  to  model  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land in  accordance  with  the  severe  simplicity  of 
those  foreign  Churches.  For  stately  ceremony,  add- 
ing dignity  and  grace  to  the  services  of  the  sanctu- 
ary, they  had  as  little  taste  as  they  had  appreciation 
for  the  glories  of  Christian  art,  whether  seen  in  the 
majesty  of  Gothic  shrine,  in  the  beauties  of  cathe- 
dral window,  or  in  some  sweet  dream  of  genius  on 
canvas  or  in  stone.  To  the  Puritan  of  that  day,  fresh 
from  the  bare  walls  of  Zurich,  the  carvings  of  York 
Minster  or  the  vaulted  ceilings  of  Westminster 
Abbey  were  but  reminders  of  the  heathenish  pomp 
and  splendor  of  the  scarlet  woman  that  sat  on  the 
seven  hills.  But  the  Church  of  England  was  entering 
the  dawn  of  another  day.  Those  who  succeeded 
the  first  bishops  and  leaders  of  Reform  endeavored 
to  maintain  a  position  midway  between  the  excesses 
of  Rome  on  the  one  hand  and  the  severe  plainness 
of  frigid  Puritanism  on  the  other.  The  service  of 
the  mass  they  discarded  as  a  corruption  of  the  truth ; 
but  the  noble  liturgy,  elevating  in  thought,  beau- 
tiful in  expression,  and  sacred  by  the  memories  of 
a  thousand  years,  they  retained  with  intelligent  de- 
votion. Episcopacy,  as  a  divinely  constituted  insti- 
tution superior  to  presbytery,  they  rejected  as  un- 


96  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

scriptural;  but  with  balanced  judgment  they  held 
and  reverenced  the  office  which  was  the  symbol 
of  unity,  the  seat  of  danger  and  of  service,  as 
well  as  the  throne  of  honor  in  the  Christian 
Church  when  the  Pantheon  was  yet  filled  with 
the  gods  of  the  empire,  and  the  followers  of 
Christ,  under  Roman  law,  plucked  the  purple 
flower  of  martyrdom. 

The  occasion  of  the  controversy  was  the  publi- 
cation of  a  Puritan  work,  Admonition  to  Parlia- 
inent,  wdiich  was  followed  the  same  year  by  A  Sec- 
ond Admonition.  To  this  Archbishop  Whitgift, 
''  a  sage  and  prudent  man,"  says  Stillingfleet, ''  whom 
we  cannot  suppose  either  ignorant  of  the  sense  of 
the  Church  of  England  or  afraid  or  unwilling  to  de- 
fend it,"  made  reply.  Like  other  great  teachers  of 
the  Church,  he  defends  episcopacy,  not  on  the  ground 
of  divine  right,  but  solely  on  the  plea  of  expediency. 
His  answer,  which  was  approved  by  Archbishop 
Parker,  Bishop  Cox,  and  others,  was  considered,  says 
Strype,  one  of  the  public  books  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  was  held  in  as  high  esteem  as  Jewel's 
Apology  and  Defense.  Bishop  Whitgift  denies  the 
conferring  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  ordination  by  im- 
position of  hands  ;  agrees  with  Calvin  in  his  exposi- 
tion of  I  Tim.  iii  and  2  Tim.  i;  approves  of  episco- 
pacy for  England,  but  does  not  condemn  other 
Churches  for  the  lack  of  it.* 

^  Answer  to  the  Admonition,  Tract  iii,  chap.  iv. 


TEACHINGS    OF   THE    REFORMERS.  9/ 

Fulke,  master  of  Pembroke  College,  in  his  spirited 
reply  to  Stapleton,  the  Romanist,  said  : 

The  third  demand  is  that  we  must  show  a  succession  from 
the  apostles,  as  the  Scripture  witnesseth  the  Church  to  have 
and  the  ancient  fathers  exacted  of  the  heretics.  The  Scripture 
requireth  no  succession  of  names,  persons,  or  places,  but  of  faith 
and  doctrine  ;  and  that  we  prove  when  we  approve  our  faith 
and  doctrine  by  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles. 

Bancroft's  sermon  at  St.  Paul's  Cross  (1588) 
brought  out  a  reply  from  Dr.  Rainoldes  of  Oxford, 
who  was  regarded  as  the  most  learned  man  of  his 
time.  Bancroft  had  asserted  that  "  the  superiority 
of  bishops  over  the  clergy  is  God's  ordinance."  Rai- 
noldes denies  the  truthfulness  of  the  statement  on  the 
authority  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  quotes  an  impos- 
ing array  of  eminent  writers  of  antiquity,  and  in  ad- 
dition, which  establishes  the  position  taken  at  the 
beginning  of  this  chapter,  cites,  as  in  harmony  with 
the  opinion  of  Jerome  and  the  authorities  referred 
to  by  Jewel,  the  founders,  bishops,  and  doctors  of 
divinity  of  the  Church  of  England.  His  comprehen- 
sive summary  is  conclusive : 

Besides,  all  that  have  labored  in  reforming  the  Church  for  five 
hundred  years  have  taught  that  all  pastors,  be  they  entitled 
l)ishops  or  priests,  have  equal  authority  and  power  by  God's 
word  ;  as,  first,  the  Waldensians  ;  next,  Marsilius  Patavinus ; 
then  Wyclif  and  his  scholars  ;  afterward,  Huss  and  the  Huss- 
ites ;  and,  last  of  all,  Luther,  Calvin,  Brentius,  Bullinger,  and 
Musculus.  Among  ourselves  we  have  bishops,  the  queen's 
professors  of  divinity  in  our  universities  (Drs.  Humphrey  and 
White),  and  other  learned  men  consenting  herein,  as  Bradford, 
Lambert,  Jewel,  Pilkington,  Humphrey,  Fulke,  etc.    But  what 


98  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

do  I  speak  of  particular  persons?  It  is  the  common  judgment 
of  the  Reformed  Churches  of  Helvetia,  Savoy,  France,  Scotland, 
Germany,  Hungary,  Poland,  the  Low  Countries,  and  our  own. 
I  hope  Dr.  Bancroft  will  not  say  that  all  these  have  approved 
that  for  sound  doctrine  which  was  condemned  by  the  general 
consent  of  the  whole  Church  for  heresy  in  a  most  flourishing 
lime.  I  hope  he  will  acknowledge  that  he  was  overseen  when 
he  avouched  tbe  superiority  which  bishops  have  among  us  over 
the  clergy  to  be  by  God's  ordinance. 

Saravia,  the  learned  friend  of  Hooker,  is  held  by 
Anglican  writers  to  have  asserted  the  divine  right 
of  bishops.  But  he  also  maintained  that  presbyters 
could  ordain  bishops,  for  the  reason  that  in  the  low- 
est grade,  if  bishops  are  taken  away,  the  whole  power 
of  the  keys  resides  ;  and  that  of  the  ministers  who 
gathered  at  Poissy  some  were  ordained  by  bish- 
ops of  the  Roman  Church,  others  by  the  Reformed 
Church,  '*  yet  none  of  them  ought  to  have  been 
ashamed  of  his  ordination." 

In  1593  Hooker's  monumental  work,  Of  the  Lazvs 
of  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  appeared.  It  is  unsatisfac- 
tory to  those  whose  cause  it  was  intended  to  sup- 
port, for,  although  Hooker  defends  episcopacy  as  a 
divine  institution,  which  may  be  admitted  in  a  very 
modified  sense,  he  nevertheless  concedes  that  episco- 
pal ordination  is  not  at  all  times  necessary.  Thus 
he  writes : 

Now,  whereas  hereupon  some  do  infer  that  no  ordination 
can  stand,  but  only  such  as  is  made  by  bishops  which  have 
their  ordination  likewise  by  other  bishops  before  them,  till  we 
come  to  the  very  apostles  of  Christ  themselves,  ...  to  this  we 


TEACHINGS    OF   THE    REFORMERS.  99 

answer  that  there  may  be  sometimes  very  just  and  sufficient 
reason  to  allow  ordination  made  without  a  bishop. 

Field's  treatise  Of  the  CJiu7'ch  (1606),  a  work 
highly  esteemed  by  divines  of  the  English  Church, 
appeared  in  the  Roman  controversy.  On  the 
vital  question  of  the  power  of  order  he  agrees 
with  Hooker.  To  the  question,  whether  the  power 
of  order  be  so  essentially  annexed  to  the  order  of 
bishops  that  none  but  bishops  may  in  any  case  or- 
dain, he  replies : 

The  power  of  ecclesiastical  or  sacred  order,  that  is,  the  power 
and  authority  to  intermeddle  with  things  pertaining  to  the  serv- 
ice of  God,  ...  is  equal  and  the  same  in  all  those  whom  we 
call  presbyters.  .  .  .  Only  for  order  sake  and  the  preserva- 
tion of  peace  there  is  a  limitation  of  the  use  and  the  exer- 
cise of  the  same ;  .  .  .  whereby  it  is  most  evident  that  that 
wherein  a  bishop  excelleth  a  presbyter  is  not  a  distinct  power 
of  order,  but  an  eminence  and  dignity  only,  specially  yielded  to 
one  above  all  the  rest  of  the  same  rank  for  order  sake  and  to  pre- 
serve the  unity  and  peace  of  the  Church.' 

Mason,  whose  VindicicE  Ecclesice  AnglicancB  (161 3) 
serves  as  the  armory  whence  the  advocates  of 
the  historic  episcopate  draw  their  weapons,  was  a 
stout  defender  of  the  legitimacy  of  English  episco- 
pacy, but  he  was  too  well  versed  in  the  doctrines  of 
the  reformers,  founders,  and  bishops  of  his  Church, 
and  in  the  opinions  of  the  learned  men  of  his  time, 
to  defend  a  doctrine  at  variance  with  Scripture,  his- 
tory, and  the  consensus  of  the  Protestant  world. 
He  admits  that  the  line  of  succession   was  inter- 

1  Book  iii,  chap,  xxxix,  "  Of  Succession,"  etc. 


lOO  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

rupted  in  the  Churches  of  Constantinople  and  of 
Alexandria,  and  also  in  the  Church  of  Rome ;  that 
succession  without  true  doctrine  is  no  true  succes- 
sion ;  that  no  form  of  government  by  God's  com- 
mandment is  binding  universally,  perpetually,  un- 
changeably, on  all  Churches ;  and  that,  "  seeing  a 
presbyter  is  equal  to  a  bishop  in  the  power  of 
order,  he  hath  equally  intrinsical  power  to  give 
orders." 

Dr.  Whitaker,  who,  like  Whitgift,  certainly  knew 
the  sense  of  the  Church  of  England,  says : 

I  confess  that  there  was  originally  no  difference  between  a 
bishop  and  a  presbyter.  Luther  and  the  other  heroes  of  the 
Reformation  were  presbyters,  even  according  to  the  ordination 
of  the  Romish  Church,  and  therefore  they  were  Jure  divino 
bishops.  Consequently  whatever  belongs  to  bishops  belongs, 
jure  divi7io,  to  themselves.  As  for  bishops  being  afterward 
placed  over  presbyters,  that  was  a  human  arrangement  for  the 
removal  of  schisms,  as  the  historians  of  the  times  testify.' 

To  these  illustrious  names  the  historian  of  Eng- 
lish episcopacy  might  add,  almost  without  leaving 
the  sixteenth  century,  such  authorities  as  Sutcliffe, 
Parker,  Crakanthrop,  Rogers,  Willet,  Bishops 
Bridges,  Downham,  Morton,  Andrewes,  Hall,  Da- 
venant,  Stillingfleet,  Archbishop  Ussher,  and  many 
others,  who  all  agree  that  the  historic  episcopate 
now  advocated  with  such  zeal  was  not  at  any  time 
up  to  the  year  1662  a  doctrine  of  the  Church  of 
England.     Whether  the  teachings  and  practice  of 

^  Works,  vol.i,  p.  509,  fol.,  Geneva,  1610. 


TEACHINGS   OF   THE    REFORMERS.  lOI 

those  who  founded  that  Church  and  died  for  it,  and 
the  opinions  of  those  who  governed  it  and  defended 
it  against  Romanism  and  Puritanism  for  one  hun- 
dred and  thirteen  years — during  which  period  there 
was  no  voice  raised  among  them  questioning  those 
teachings — whether  the  authoritative  declarations 
of  these  bishops  and  doctors  are  to  be  accepted  as. ex- 
pressing the  sense  of  the  Church  of  England,  rather 
than  the  borrowed  opinions  of  a  new  school  of  di- 
vines who  teach  the  opposite  of  these  Reformers,  we 
may  confidently  leave  to  the  unbiased  judgment  of 
common  sense. 

But  not  only  did  the  Reformers  of  the  Anglican 
Church  defend  the  doctrine  of  orders  as  above  given 
— the  Church  practiced  their  principles.  The  Church 
of  England  was  in  fellowship  and  agreement  in  doc- 
trine with  the  Reformed  Churches  on  the  Continent, 
and  recognized  the  nonepiscopal  orders  of  those 
Churches  as  valid. 

In  1873,  during  a  meeting  of  the  Evangelical  Al- 
liance in  New  York,  the  Dean  of  Canterbury  (Dr. 
R.  Payne  Smith)  and  Dr.  Cummins,  assistant 
bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  diocese  of  Ken- 
tucky, partook  of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  a  Presbyte- 
rian church.  This  fraternal  act  gave  such  offense  to 
High  Churchmen  that  Bishop  Cummins  was  forced 
to  resign  his  office.  The  organization  of  a  new  de- 
nomination, the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church,  was  the 
result.     But  in  1618,  at  the  Synod  of  Dort,  Bishop 


102  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

Carleton,  Drs.  Davenant,  Ward, and  Hall,  all  eminent 
men,  with  other  deputies  of  the  Church  of  England, 
received  the  holy  communion  from  the  hands  of 
Dr.  Bogermann,  the  Presbyterian  moderator  of  the 
assembly;  and  Dr.  Hall,  afterward  the  Bishop  of 
Norwich,  wrote,  '*  There  is  no  place  on  earth  like 
the  Synod  of  Dort,  no  place  where  I  should  like  so 
much  to  dwell."  The  difference  between  these  two 
events  of  1618  and  1873  marks  the  difference  be- 
tween the  teachings  and  practice  of  the  Church  of 
England  in  her  purest  days  and  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land as  she  now  is,  under  the  influence  of  the  school 
of  Laud- 

Cranmer  invited  the  Reformers  Martin  Bucer, 
Peter  Martyr,  Tremellius,  Fagius,  Melanchthon,  and 
others  to  teach  at  Oxford  and  Cambridge.'  The 
Articles  of  Religion  which  were  put  forth  from  time 
to  time  were  based  for  the  most  part  on  the  Confes- 
sions of  the  Reformed  Churches.*  King  Edward 
VI  in  1550  granted  a  charter  to  German  refugees 
in  London  under  John  a  Lasco  allowing  them  full 
privileges,  not  on  the  principle  of  toleration,  but  in 
order  that,  as  the  record  reads,  "  a  Church  instructed 
in  truly  Christian  and  apostolical  opinions  and  rites, 
and  grown  up  under  holy  ministers,  might  be  pre- 
served."'    Queen  Elizabeth  sent  a  representative  to 

'  Arch.  Parker,  Antiq.  Britau.,  p.  580. 

"^  Hardvvick,  History  0/  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  ;  Burnet,  Thirty- 
nine  Articles.         ^jjurnet,  Records,  No.  51,  part  ii,  book  i. 


TEACHINGS    OF   THE    REFORMERS.  IO3 

a  meeting  of  the  Reformed  Churches  at  Frankfort/ 

In  1580,  by  order  of  EHzabeth,  pubHc  prayers  were 

offered    for   these    Churches :    "And    herein,    good 

Lord,  by  special    name   we   beseech   thee    for  the 

Churches   of  France,  Flanders,  and   for  such  other 

places,"    etc.      In    the  "  Injunctions  Given  by  the 

Queen's  Majesty   as  well  to   the   Clergy  as  to  the 

Laity  of  this   Realm"  (1559)  pi'ayer  was  enjoined 

*'  for  Christ's  holy  Catholic  Church,  that  is,  for  the 

whole  congregation  of  Christian  people "  dispersed 

throughout  the  world.     The  thirty-ninth  canon  of 

the  Church  of  England  (A.  D.  1603)  declares: 

So  far  was  it  from  the  purpose  of  the  Church  of  England 
to  forsake  and  reject  the  Churches  of  Italy,  France,  Spain,  Ger- 
many, or  any  such  like  Churches,  in  all  things  which  they  held 
and  practiced  that  (as  the  apology  of  the  Church  of  England 
confesses)  it  doth  with  reverence  retain  those  ceremonies 
which  do  neither  endanger  the  Church  of  God  nor  offend  the 
minds  of  men. 

Passing  from  these  public  acts  to  the  averments 
of  ecclesiastical  authorities,  we  find  Archbishop  Par- 
ker approving  the  Helvetic  Confession,  and  Rog- 
ers, chaplain  to  Archbishop  Bancroft,  citing  the  con- 
fessions of  the  continental  Churches  in  proof  of  the 
theological  soundness  of  the  English  articles.  The 
Zurich  Letters  on  every  page  bear  witness  to  the 
close  relation  that  existed  between  the  Church  of 
England  and  the  nonepiscopal  communions  beyond 
the  sea.     "  We  have  exhibited  to  the  queen,"  writes 

*  See  Blonde!,  Actes  Authentiques,  ed.  1605,  p.  61. 


I04  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

Jewel  to  Peter  Martyr,  April  28,  [559,  "all  our  arti- 
cles of  religion  and  doctrine,  and  have  not  departed 
in  the  slightest  degree  from  the  Confession  of 
Zurich."     Again,  on  February  7,  1562,  he  writes: 

But,  now  that  the  full  light  of  the  Gospel  has  shone  forth,  the 
very  vestiges  of  error  must  as  far  as  possible  be  removed,  to- 
gether with  the  rubbish,  and,  as  the  saying  is,  with  the  very 
dust.  And  I  wish  we  could  effect  this  in  respect  to  that  linen 
surplice ;  for,  as  to  matters  of  doctrine,  we  have  pared  every- 
thing away  to  the  very  quick,  and  do  not  differ  from  your  doc- 
trine by  a  nail's  breadth. 

Bishop  Home  writes  to  Henry  Bullinger,  Decem- 
ber 13,  1563: 

We  have  throughout  England  the  same  ecclesiastical  doc- 
trine as  yourselves ;  as  to  rites  and  ceremonies  [the  original 
manuscript  is  here  illegible],  nor,  as  the  people  are  led  to  be- 
lieve, do  we  at  all  differ  in  our  estimation  of  them. 

Richard  Cox  to  W.  Weidner,  May  20,  1559: 

Meanwhile  we,  the  little  flock  who  for  these  last  five  years,  by 
the  blessing  of  God,  have  been  hidden  among  you  in  Germany, 
are  thundering  forth  in  our  pulpits,  and  especially  before  our 
Queen  Elizabeth,  that  the  Roman  pontiff  is  truly  Antichrist, 
and  that  traditions  are  for  the  most  part  mere  blasphemies. 

Bishop  Grindal,  writing  to  Bullinger,  August  27, 
1566,  says: 

We  must  fully  agree  with  your  Churches  and  with  the  confes- 
sion you  have  lately  set  forth. 

Bishop  Hall,  in  his  Peacemaker,  exclaims: 

Blessed  be  God,  there  is  no  difference  in  any  essential  matter 
between  the  Church  of  England  and  her  sisters  of  the  Refor- 
mation.^ 

'  Works ^  vol.  iii,  p.  560. 


TEACHINGS    OF   THE    REFORMERS.  IO5 

To  this  testimony,  adduced  from  the  writings  of 
those  who  were  building  the  AngHcan  structure,  may 
be  added  that  of  Bancroft,  Saravia,  Hooker,  Field, 
Andrewes,  Ussher,  indeed,  of  all  the  leading  divines 
and  prelates  of  that  Church,  up  to  the  degenerate 
period  of  the  Restoration. 

Finally,  the  founders  of  the  English  Church  not 
only  rejected  the  doctrine  of  three  divinely  instituted 
orders,  and  recognized  all  other  Churches  of  the 
Reformation  as  true  Churches  of  Christ,  but,  as  is  in- 
volved in  that  fellowship,  they  and  the  Church  of 
England  by  law  admitted  the  validity  of  the  minis- 
terial orders  in  those  Churches.  This  is  conceded 
by  candid  writers  of  the  High  Church  party,  as,  for 
example,  Keble,  in  his  Preface  to  Hooker's  works. 
By  the  act  13  Elizabeth,  says  Strype,  "the  ordina- 
tions of  the  foreign  Reformed  Churches  were  made 
valid,  and  those  that  had  no  other  orders  were  made 
of  the  same  capacity  with  others  to  enjoy  any  place 
within  England,  merely  on  their  subscribing  the  ar- 
ticles." Burnet  fells  us  that  up  to  the  year  1662 
those  who  entered  the  Church  of  England  from  the 
foreign  Churches  were  not  required  to  be  reordained. 
Bishop  Fleetwood  corroborates  the  same  by  say- 
ing that  many  ministers  came  from  the  Churches  of 
Scotland,  France,  and  the  Netherlands  who  were 
ordained  by  presbyters  only,  and  not  bishops,  and 
were  placed  in  charge  of  churches  without  reordina- 
tion,  they  simply  subscribing  to  the  Articles.     Hal- 


I06  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

lam,  in  his  Constitutional  History  of  England,  is  also 
in  evidence : 

It  had  not  been  unusual  from  the  beginning  of  the  Reformation 
to  admit  ministers  ordained  in  foreign  Churches  to  benefices  in 
England  ;  no  reordination  had  ever  been  practiced  with  respect 
to  those  who  had  received  the  imposition  of  hands  in  a  regular 
Church  ;  and  hence  it  appears  that  the  Church  of  England,  what- 
ever tenet  might  latterly  have  been  broached  in  controversy, 
did  not  consider  the  ordinations  of  presbyters  invalid. 

See  also  Lath  bury,  History  of  tJie  English  Episco- 
pacy, ^y:).  19,63,  170;  Principal  TuUoch,  in  Contem- 
porary Review,  December,  1874;  Gvixh,  Ecclesiastical 
History  of  Scotland ;  Strype,  Annals  of  the  Refor- 
mation, ii,  522,  and  Life  of  Grindal,  271 ;  Collier,  Ec- 
clesiastical History,  ii,  594;  Neal,  History  of  the  Puri- 
tans, i,  258;  Cosin,  Letter  to  M.  Cordel ;  yiidgment 
of  the  Archbishop  of  Armagh  on  Certain  Points,  113; 
Brandt,  History  of  tJie  Reformation,  iii,  4-6;  Cra- 
kanthorp,  Defensio  Ecclesice  Aug.,  254. 


IN    THE    CHURCH    OF   ENGLAND.  10/ 


CHAPTER   VI. 

Historic    Episcopate    in    the   Church   of  England   a 
Nullity. 

IT  is  evident  from  a  study  of  the  preceding  chap- 
ters that  the  possession  of  the  historic  episcopate 
by  the  Church  of  England  and  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  is,  on  any  rational  principle,  ut- 
terly improbable,  if  not  impossible.  No  one  of  all 
the  learned  bishops  and  divines  of  that  Church  dur- 
ing the  long  period  of  one  hundred  and  thirteen 
years  through  which  we  have  gone  seems  to  have 
been  aware  of  its  existence  in  that  Church,  or  to 
have  felt  the  need  of  it,  or  to  have  considered  it  as 
of  any  special  value  in  any  Church  that  possessed  it 
or  desired  it.  But,  on  the  contrary,  the  sturdiest  pil- 
lars of  the  Anglican  Church  both  challenged  the  re- 
ality of  the  fact  and  rejected  its  principles.  This, 
we  think,  has  been  sufficiently  proved.  It  is  our 
purpose  now  to  go  farther,  and  to  demonstrate  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  historic  episcopate,  or  apostol- 
ical succession,  could  not  by  any  possibility  be  held 
by  any  Church  adopting  the  doctrines  of  the  Refor- 
mation, and  that,  therefore,  the  historic  episcopate 
is  not  now,  and  never  was,  in  the  possession  of  the 
Protestant  Church  of  England. 


I08  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOl'ATE. 

Now,  it  is  conceded  by  Anglicans  that  the  Roman 
Church  possesses  the  succession,  or  historic  episco- 
pate. The  evangelical  Churches  of  Christendom 
make  no  such  admission,  for  the  fact  has  never  yet 
been  proved  ;  but  High  Church  advocates  are  com- 
pelled to  admit  it  by  the  nature  of  their  position, 
since  from  Roman  sources  Anglican  orders  were 
originally  derived.  To  deny  succession,  then,  to  the 
Church  of  Rome  would  be  to  deny  it  to  the  Church 
of  England.  Without  agreeing  to  this  concession 
of  Anglicans,  but  assuming  that  such  is  the  histor- 
ical fact,  we  inquire,  What  is  this  historic  episco- 
pate, or  apostolical  succession,  held  by  the  Roman 
communion  and  which  Anglicans  claim  was  trans- 
mitted to  the  Church  of  England  ? 

It  is  to  be  presumed  that  the  Roman  Church 
knows  its  own  doctrine  ;  this  doctrine,  then,  as  main- 
tained by  that  Church  is  as  follows :  No  one  can 
lawfully  assume  the  office  of  an  ambassador  unless 
he  is  commissioned  by  lawful  authority.  As  in  the 
old  dispensation,  so  in  the  new,  no  man  taketh  to 
himself  the  office  of  a  minister  of  God  unless  he  be 
called  as  was  Aaron.  The  high  priest  of  our  pro- 
fession, Jesus  Christ,  did  not  enter  upon  his  minis- 
try until  he  was  commissioned  by  the  Voice  from 
heaven  and  received  the  anointing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Likewise,  when  he  appointed  his  apostles 
to  be  ministers  of  grace  he  gave  them  formal  au- 
thority to  act  in  his  name.     "  As  my  Father  hath 


IN   THE    CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND.  lOQ 

sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you." '  Clothed  with  this 
authority  from  Christ  himself  which  they  alone 
possessed,  the  apostles  went  forth  into  the  world 
proclaiming  the  Gospel  and  organizing  churches  or 
Christian  societies.  When  in  the  run  of  time  the 
number  of  churches  multiplied  and  personal  super- 
vision by  the  apostles  was  impossible,  they  ap- 
pointed pastors  over  these  churches,  endowing  them 
with  authority  and  power  to  exercise  the  office  of 
the  ministry  of  reconciliation  in  the  Church  of  God. 
These  pastors,  thus  commissioned  and  endowed, 
transmitted  to  their  successors  in  office  the  grace 
and  authority  they  had  received  from  the  apostles ; 
and  these  in  turn  transmitted  the  same  sacerdotal 
gifts  to  their  successors,  atid  so  on,  in  uninterrupted 
succession  to  the  present,  each  in  the  series  receiv- 
ing in  full  the  power  of  order  transmitted  from  the 
apostles  and  originally  given  by  Christ  himself. 

This  power  of  order  consists  of  order  and  jurisdic- 
tion. By  order  is  signified  the  power  to  offer  sacri- 
fice ;  by  jurisdiction,  the  authority  to  govern.  The 
Roman  Church  teaches  that  this  priesthood  was  in- 
stituted by  the  Lord  our  Saviour,  and  that  to  his 
apostles  and  their  successors  this  power  was  given 
to  consecrate,  offer,  and  minister  his  body  and  blood 
and  to  remit  and  retain  sins.^  This  priesthood  was 
established  at  the  Last  Supper,^  and  the  power  of 

'John  XX,  21.  2  Concil,  Trid.^  sess.  xxxi,  c.  i. 

8  Concil.  Trid.y  sess.  xxii,  c.  i. 


no  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

jurisdiction  was  given  when  Jesus  breathed  on  his 
disciples,  saying,  '^  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost : 
whosesoever  sins  ye  forgive,  they  are  forgiven  unto 
them ;  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are  re- 
tained."^ The  means  by  which  this  power  is  trans- 
mitted is  the  sacrament  of  holy  orders  administered 
by  a  bishop.  In  this  sacrament  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
received,  and  an  indelible  character  is  thereby  im- 
pressed on  the  soul  of  the  ordained.  ''  Whosoever 
shall  affirm  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  given  in 
ordination,  and  that,  therefore,  bishops  say  in  vain, 
*  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost,'  or  that  thereby  a  char- 
acter is  not  impressed,  ...  let  him  be  anathema." " 
Such  is  the  doctrine  of  apostolic  succession  held 
by  the  Church  of  Rome.  The  pith  of  it  is  the  trans- 
mission of  sacerdotal  powers,  the  power  to  offer  the 
eucharist  and  to  forgive  sins.  This  is  the  mystical 
grace  resulting  from  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in 
the  imposition  of  hands  by  a  bishop — the  power  to 
change  bread  and  wine  into  the  real  body  and  blood 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  This  essential  element 
of  the  doctrine  of  apostolical  succession  is  conven- 
iently passed  over  by  those  who,  desirous  of  succes- 
sion, but  wishing  to  avoid  the  logical  consequences 
involved,  substitute  chronology  for  theology.  The 
material,  mechanical,  tactual  succession  of  persons 
in    unbroken  series,    upon   which  so  many  writers 

'  Concil.  Trid.,  sess.  xiv,  c.  i. 
^  Concil.  Trid.,  sess.  xxxii,  c.  iv. 


IN   THE    CHURCH    OF   ENGLAND.  Ill 

place  emphasis,  and  as  many  more  labor  unneces- 
sarily to  disprove,  is  nothing  more  than  the  mere 
outward  covering,  the  shell,  so  to  speak ;  the  real 
thing  itself  being  the  mystical  grace  of  priesthood, 
without  which  tactual  succession  is  an  empty  and 
insignificant  trifle,  and  can  be  of  important  interest 
only  to  those  who  endeavor  to  substitute  another 
and  different  kind  of  succession  from  that  which 
is  considered  as  the  only  real  succession  by  that 
Church  which  Anglicans  affirm  always  has  been,  and 
is  now,  in  possession  of  the  succession  derived  from 
the  apostles,  but  which  succession,  according  to 
Cardinal  Newman,  depends  on  the  "  immediate, 
present,  living  authority  "  of  that  Church,  and  "  not 
on  any  historical  antiquarian  research  or  genealog- 
ical table."  * 

Let  it  be  granted,  then,  that  the  founders  of  the 
English  Episcopal  Church — Cranmer,  Ridley,  Bar- 
low, Parker,  Hodgkins — received  this  ordination  and 
this  succession  when  they  were  ordained  priests  in 
the  Church  of  Rome.  But  did  they  transmit  this 
ordination,  or  any  element  of  this  succession,  to  those 
whom  they  ordained  when  founding  the  Church  of 
England?  Did  they  intend  to  do  so?  Did  they 
have  authority  to  do  so?  Did  they  have  power  in 
themselves  to  do  so?  Herein  lies  the  heart  of  the 
whole  question,  and  it  cannot  be  passed  over;  for 
nothing  can  be  plainer  than  the  clear  fact  that,  if 

^Essays,  vol.  ii,  p.  87. 


112  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

these  questions  cannot  be  answered  in  the  affirma- 
tive, then  apostoHcal  succession  never  did  belong  to 
the  Church  of  England,  and  certainly  is  not  to  be 
found  there  now. 

Now,  it  is  a  fundamental  and  universally  admitted 
principle  that  no  one  who  withdraws  from,  or  is  ex- 
communicated by,  a  Church  can  exercise  in  the 
name,  or  by  the  authority,  of  that  Church  any 
right,  power,  privilege,  or  authority  conferred 
upon  him  while  he  was  in  that  Church.  Under 
such  circumstances  he  is  to  that  Church  as  if  he 
had  never  existed.  He  is  deprived  of  all  relation 
and  the  use  of  every  ecclesiastical  power,  for  that 
which  has  the  power  to  give  has  the  power  to 
take  away.  Illustrations  of  this  principle  may  be 
found  in  every  age  of  the  Church.  The  Arian, 
Eutychian,  and  Donatist  bishops  were  all  validly 
consecrated  ;  but  when  they  rebelled  against  the 
authority  which  commissioned  them  and  gave 
them  jurisdiction  all  their  acts  were  declared  null 
and  void.  They  were  no  longer  in  the  line  of 
succession  and  could  not  transmit  what  they  did 
not  possess.  Cyprian,  whose  Church  system  is 
so  much  eulogized  by  Anglican  and  Romanist^ 
in  an  epistle  to  Stephen,  Bishop  of  Rome,  in 
which  he  and  other  North  African  bishops  ex- 
press their  disciplinary  views  concerning  certain 
presbyters  who  had  returned  from  error  to  the 
bosom  of  the  Church,  writes  : 


IN    THE    CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND.  II3 

We  tell  you  farther,  clear  brother,  by  common  consent  and 
authority,  that  if  any  presbyters  or  deacons,  who  have  either 
been  ordained  before  in  the  Catholic  Church  and  after- 
ward turned  traitors  and  rebels  agamst  the  Church,  or  have 
been  promoted  by  a  profane  ordination,  in  a  state  of  heresy, 
by  false  bishops  and  antichrists,  contrary  to  our  Lord's  insti- 
tution— that  such,  if  they  return  to  the  Church,  shall  only  be 
admitted  to  lay  communion. 

But  we  need  not  refer  to  ancient  history  for  exam- 
ples. This  principle  is  recognized  and  acted  upon 
by  the  Church  of  England  and  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church.  In  1873,  as  we  have  seen,  Bishop 
Cummins  withdrew  from  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  giving  as  his  reason  the  progress  of  ritual- 
ism in  that  denomination.  With  others  of  like  be- 
lief he  organized  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church. 
The  bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
met  and  formally  deposed  him  from  his  office.  But 
the  Reformed  Church  prospered.  Bishops  were  or- 
dained for  England,  and  houses  of  worship  were 
opened  there.  The  Anglican  bishops  of  Chichester 
and  of  St.  Albans  warned  their  flocks  with  true  apos- 
tolic zeal  against  these  new  bishops,  as  intruders  in 
the  guise  of  real  bishops,  and  denied  that  they  had 
any  jurisdiction.  The  Bishop  of  St.  Albans  in  a 
charge  delivered  to  his  clergy  declared  the  orders 
of  Dr.  Gregg,  a  bishop  of  the  new  Church,  to  be  also 
invalid.  The  correspondence  resulting  is  important 
in  many  ways.' 

'  See  Methodist  Quarterly  Review,  October,  1870,  p.  735. 


114  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

To  the  charge  of  the  Anglican  prelate  Dr.  Gregg 

replied  : 

My  Lord  :  In  your  charge  delivered  on  Tuesday  you  not 
only  questioned  the  validity  of  my  consecration  as  derived  from 
a  deposed  bishop  of  the  American  Episcopal  Church,  but  you 
failed  to  state  the  real  reason  for  the  formation  of  the  Re- 
formed Episcopal  ChuVch  in  this  country,  namely,  the  extreme 
sacerdotalism  which  almost  everywhere  prevails  and  will  ruin 
the  Church  of  England.  The  bishop  through  whom  the  his- 
torical succession  reached  me  had  his  consecration  directly 
through  the  Anglican  communion,  and  had  not  been  deposed 
when  the  succession  was  transmitted  through  him  to  the  three 
bishops  by  whom  I  was  validly  and  canonically  consecrated. 
...  I  am,  etc. 

To  this  the  Bishop  of  St.  Albans  replied : 

Reverend  Sir:  You  assert  that  the  bishop  through  whom 
the  historical  succession  reached  you  had  his  consecration 
directly  through  the  Anglican  conmiunion,  and  had  not  been 
deposed  when  the  succession  was  transmitted.  I  presume  thnt 
the  bishop  to  whom  you  refer  was  Dr.  Cummins.  My  state- 
ment was  that  this  bishop,  though  not  yet  formally  deposed, 
lay  under  prohibition  from  performing  any  episcopal  act,  which 
prohibition  was  publically  notified  December  i,  1873,  just  a 
fortnight  before  he  proceeded  to  consecrate  that  bishop  through 
whom,  as  you  say,  you  received  the  historical  succession.  I 
have  authority  to  state  that  none  of  the  American  bishops  have 
ever  recognized  the  act  of  pretended  consecration  performed 
by  Dr.  Cummins  or  any  act  growing  out  of  it.     I  am,  etc. 

Here  we  see  the  application  of  the  law.  Although 
Bishop  CumiTiins  was  himself  validly  and  canonically 
ordained,  and  did  receive,  we  will  assume,  what  was 
called  the  succession,  nevertheless,  when  he  seceded 
from  his  Church  he  was  immediately  and  de  facto  pro- 
hibited from  the  exercise  of  episcopal  function  ;  the 


IN    THE    CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND.  II5 

succession  was  withdrawn  by  the  authority  that  gave 
it;  his  consecrations  were  "  pretended "  consecrations ; 
he  was  without  mission  or  jurisdiction ;  and  all  his 
acts  were  null  and  void. 

But  if  th^  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  could  thus 
annihilate  in  the  Rev.  Dr.  Cummins  all  authority 
and  power  formerly  belonging  to  him  as  bishop  in 
that  Church,  and  if  as  a  result  all  consecrations  by 
him  were  pretended  consecrations,  conveying  no 
power  or  grace  whatever,  and  all  possibility  of  trans- 
mitting the  historic  episcopate  ceased  in  him,  how 
was  it  possible  for  the  succession  ever  to  have  come 
to  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  itself?  By  what 
method  of  logic,  by  what  course  of  reasoning,  can  a 
reflecting  mind  make  it  appear  that  this  succession 
or  episcopate  ever  reached  the  Church  of  England  ? 
By  whom  was  it  transmitted,  and  by  whose  author- 
ity ?  The  founders  of  the  English  Church  who  gave 
the  first  ministry  to  that  Church  v/ere  deposed  and 
excommunicated  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  of  which 
they  were  originally  ministers.  All  sacerdotal  power 
and  ecclesiastical  authority  of  every  character  was 
withdrawn  from  them  by  the  same  power  that  first 
conferred  it,  and  therefore,  as  a  necessary  conse- 
quence, the  transmission  of  that  power  or  authority 
and  the  continuity  of  the  succession  were  de  facto  im- 
possible. Neither  Cranmer,  nor  Ridley,  nor  Barlow, 
nor  any  of  the  Reformers  could  transmit  or  give  to 
others  what  he  himself  did  not  have.     What  value, 


Il6  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

then,  on  Anglican  principles  of  succession,  had  the 
acts  of  the  founders  of  the  Anglican  Church,  and 
what  other  than  a  "pretended"  consecration  was 
the  consecration  of  Matthew  Parker,  the  corner 
stone  of  the  Anglican  hierarchy  ?  These  Reformers 
could  claim  no  authority  from  the  Church  they  had 
denounced,  from  which  they  had  withdrawn,  and 
which  had  excommunicated  them.  From  God  di- 
rectly they  might  indeed  claim  authority,  as  did  the 
apostle  Paul,  and  from  God  they  should  show  their 
credentials,  as  we  believe  they  did;  or  they  might 
claim  it  from  the  Church  which  they  h^id  newly  organ- 
ized, though  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  Church  was  not 
consulted.  But  from  the  Church  in  which  they  were 
ordained  and  from  which  they  had  separated  they 
could  claim  no  authority,  nor  did  they  possess  any 
authority  or  power,  any  more  than  Dr.  Cummins 
did  when  deposed  by  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  ;  for  the  power  that  gave  had  the  power  to 
take  away. 

Again,  not  only  did  that  Church  which  Anglicans 
concede  to  be  in  possession  of  the  succession  most 
solemnly,  and  with  all  the  spiritual  terrors  then  in- 
voked by  the  mighty  curse  of  Rome,  stop  the  flow 
of  mystic  grace  constituting  the  essence  of  succes- 
sion, but  these  Reformers,  the  founders  of  the  Angli- 
can Church,  never  claimed  succession,  or  that  they 
had  transmitted  or  could  transmit  it  to  others  whom 
they  ordained.     It  is  impossible  to  think  of  these 


IN    THE    CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND.  II7 

preachers  of  a  pure  Gospel  transmitting  Roman 
succession.  The  indelible  character,  character  in- 
delebilis,  which  Rome  taught  was  involved  in  the 
very  nature  of  ordination,  was  spoken  of  with  un- 
measured contempt.  Calvin,  whose  influence  on 
English  thought  was  most  powerful,  wrote  of  it  as 
a  fable  invented  in  the  schools  of  ignorant  monks. 
Dr.  Fulke,  the  master  of  Pembroke  College,  in  his 
controversy  with  a  Romanist  affirmed : 

There  is  no  evidence  at  all  that  the  order  of  priesthood  is  a 
sacrament  or  giveth  grace. 

In  another  work  he  says : 

You  are  most  deceived  if  you  [the  Catholics]  think  we  es- 
teem your  offices  of  bishops,  priests,  deacons,  any  better  than 
laymen.  Again,  with  all  our  hearts  we  defy,  abhor,  detest,  and 
spit  at  your  stinking,  greasy,  antichristian  orders.* 

Bishop  Jewel,  writing  to  Simler,  November,  1559, 

says : 

As  to  your  expressing  your  hopes  that  our  bishops  will  be  in- 
augurated ^  without  any  superstitious  nnd  offensive  ceremonies, 
you  mean,  I  suppose,  without  oil,  without  the  chrism,  without  the 
tonsure.  And  you  are  not  mistaken  ;  for  the  sink  would  in- 
deed have  been  emptied  to  no  purpose  if  we  had  suffered  those 
dregs  to  settle  at  the  bottom.  These  oily,  shaven,  portly  hypo- 
crites we  have  sent  back  to  Rome,  from  whence  we  first  im- 
ported them  ;  for  we  require  our  bishops  to  be  pastors,  labor- 
ers, and  watchmen. 

*  The  Retentioyi. 

2  The  translator  of  the  Zurich  Letters  has  rendered  Jewel's  word 
inaugtirarihy  "  consecrated,"  which  is  scarcely  defensible.  Jewel's 
term  throws  a  flood  of  light  on  Parker's  consecration.  Consecration 
is  not  inauguration  in  ecclesiastical  terminology. 


Il8  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

''I  would  not  have  you  think,"  wrote  Bishop 
Whitaker,  who  knew  the  sense  of  the  Reformers, 
'*that  we  make  such  reckoning  of  your  orders  as  to 
hold  our  own  vocation  unlawful  without  them.  And 
therefore  keep  your  orders  to  yourselves." 

Calfhill,  Bishop-elect  of  Worcester,  in  his  A?isivcr 
to  the  Treatise  of  the  Cross,  says : 

For  the  character  mdelebilis,''  the  mark  unmovable,"  is  thereby 
given.  Yet  there  is  a  way  to  have  it  out  well  enough — to  rub 
them  well  favorably  with  salt  and  ashes,  or,  if  that  will  not  serve, 
with  a  little  soap. 

Can  High  Church  writers  hope  to  make  intelligent 
readers  believe  that  these  men  had  any  such  rever- 
ence for,  or  idea  of,  apostolical  succession  in  the 
Roman  Church  as  they  themselves  assiduously  culti- 
vate ?  Is  it  possible  to  believe  that  these  vcftw  when 
laying  the  foundations  of  the  English  Church  had  the 
remotest  thought,  the  dimmest  conception,  that 
they  were  dependent  on  the  Roman  Church  for  their 
episcopal  orders,  and  that  they  were  transmitting 
the  same  succession  which  they  had  by  virtue  of 
their  orders  received  from  that  Church  ? 

If  anything  is  certain  in  English  history  it  is  that 
the  Reformers  broke  with  Rome.  They  rejected 
all  the  doctrinal  accretions  of  the  centuries  and  went 
back  by  divine  right  to  the  pure  word  of  God ;  they 
rejected  the  mass,  the  priesthood  which  rested  on 
the  mass,  and  therefore  rejected  all  idea  of  the  re- 
ality of  that  imaginary,  mystical  power  conferred  in 


IN    THE    CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND.  I  I9 

ordination  and  without  which,  according  to  Roman 
teaching,  there  is  no  real  ordination.  The  rejec- 
tion of  the  mass  and  of  all  the  teachings  con- 
nected with  it  carried  with  it  the  rejection  of  the 
whole  doctrine  of  apostolical  succession  ;  for  it  was 
that  kind  of  succession,  the  essence  of  which  is  the 
mystic  grace  of  priesthood,  and  not  any  other  kind, 
which  they  received,  if  they  obtained  any,  from  that 
Church.  It  was  that  kind  only  which  she  had  taught, 
that  kind  only  which  she  possessed  or  of  which  she 
had  any  knowledge,  and  that  kind  only  which  she 
had  to  give.  The  apostolic  Church  or  the  Church 
of  the  Nicene  period  might  have  had  different  views 
of  the  succession  and  of  the  Christian  ministry;  so 
also  might  the  Church  of  the  Donatists  or  of  the 
Novatians  or  of  the  Greeks  ;  but  it  was  from  none 
of  these  Churches  that  the  Reformers  received  their 
ordination  or  succession,  but  from  the  Church  of 
Rome,  which  they  afterward  denounced  as  anti- 
christ. The  succession  which  that  Church  held  and 
transmitted  to  her  bishops  carried  with  it,  like  a 
river  which  holds  in  solution  the  soil  of  the  country 
through  which  it  flows,  the  doctrines  of  Rome ;  but 
these  doctrines  and  this  succession  they  discarded, 
and,  fallingback  on  the  primal  truth  that  they  were 
called  of  God  *  to  preach  his  word,  they  sought  to 
establish   a  Church  on  New  Testament  principles. 

*  The   Ordinal  of  Edward   VI   requires   an   inward  call   to  the 
ministr)'. 


120  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

This  is  what  they  themselves  claimed,  and  not  what 
modern  High  Church  advocates  claim  for  them. 

Now,  to  imagine,  as  some  would  have  us,  that  by 
some  unknown  method,  by  some  metaphysical  proc- 
ess, these  Reformers  eliminated  the  Roman  character 
from  the  succession  they  received,  and  yet  retained 
that  succession,  is  scarcely  worthy  of  serious  thought. 
For  the  doctrine,  thus  denuded  of  its  sacerdotal  qual- 
ity, thus  deprived  of  the  mystical  grace  in  which  its 
real  value  resides,  is  no  longer  the  peculiar  possession 
of  any  Church,  but  belongs  to  all.  But  in  doing 
this  the  Reformers  would  be  manufacturing  a  new 
succession,  a  kind  which  the  Roman  Church,  which 
Ancflicans  assert  has  the  succession,  knew  not  nor 
possessed,  and  which  was  unknown  to  Christendom. 
Not  more  worthy  of  consideration  is  that  stretch  of 
the  imagination  which  we  are  invited  to  accept,  as 
if  it  was  real  and  not  a  mere  figment  of  the  fancy, 
that  the  founders  of  the  English  episcopacy  and  min- 
istry unlinked  themselves  from  the  corrupt  succes- 
sion of  the  sixteenth  century  and,  going  back  fifteen 
hundred  years,  joined  themselves  to  the  Church  of 
the  apostolic  or  subapostolic  age.  To  whom  did 
they  go?  Who  rose  from  the  dead  and  placed  his 
hands  upon  them  ?  The  attempt  to  think  the  re- 
ality exposes  the  absurdity  of  the  idea. 

The  simple  truth,  lucid  as  a  sunbeam,  is  that  the 
succession  which  these  godly  Reformers  were  in  and 
which  they  originally  received  was  a  true  succession 


IN    THE   CHURCH   OF   ENGLAND.  121 

coming  down  from  Christ  and  his  apostles,  or  it  was 
not.  If  it  was,  then  in  rejecting  it  and  all  that  it 
implied  and  which  gave  it  a  distinctive  character, 
and  in  setting  up  instead  of  it  a  substitute  of  their 
own  making,  they  did  not  possess  true  apostolical 
succession  when  founding  the  Church  of  England  ; 
and  neither  that  Church  nor  its  offshoot,  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church,  has  that  succession  now. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  the  succession  they  were  in 
and  received  was  not  true,  then  they  did  not  receive 
real,  genuine  succession,  nor  did  they  transmit  it 
to  others  ;  whence  it  follows,  in  either  case,  that  the 
doctrine  of  apostolic  succession,  or  the  historic  epis- 
copate, so  loudly  claimed  by  Anglican  bishops,  and 
so  little  understood,  it  would  seem,  by  Anglican 
writers,  never  did  exist  in  the  Church  of  England  es- 
tablished by  law. 

Francis  Mason  endeavored  with  much  ingenuity 
to  preserve  succession  while  denying  the  mystical 
grace  conferred,  and  his  argument  has  become  the 
model  on  which  later  efforts  of  that  kind  are  formed. 
That  the  nature  of  such  attempts  may  be  under- 
stood we  present  a  specimen  of  Mason's  reasoning, 
which  is  correct  from  the  standpoint  of  evangelical 
principles,  but,  as  will  be  seen,  is  utterly  destructive 
to  Anglican  pretensions.  The  argument  is  in  the 
form  of  a  dialogue.     Philodox,  a  Romanist,  says  : 

We  have  a  Church  and  priesthood  which  derive  their  original 
from  Christ ;  you  can  go  no  farther  than  Cranmer.     Now,  if 


122  THE    HISTORIC    EriSCOPATE. 

this  were  put  to  King  Ptolemy  or  any  other  indifferent  man, 
would  he  not  give  judgment  for  us  against  you  ? 

To  this  Mason  answers: 

No ;  neither  for  your  priesthood  nor  for  your  Church  ;  not 
for  the  first,  because  the  priesthood  which  the  apostles  con- 
ferred was  only  a  power  to  minister  the  word  and  sacraments, 
which,  being  conveyed  to  posterity  successively  by  ordination,  is 
found  at  this  day  in  some  sort  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  in  regard 
whereof  you  may  be  said  to  succeed  the  apostles,  and  Cranmer 
you,  and  we  Cranmer,  and  consequently  we  also  in  this  succeed 
the  apostles  as  well  as  you.  But  besides  this,  which  is  the  or- 
dinance of  God,  you  have  added  another  thing,  the  imagination 
of  your  own  brain,  which  you  esteem  the  principal  function  of 
priesthood,  to  wit,  a  power  to  offer  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  for 
the  quick  and  the  dead.  Now,  how  is  it  possible  that  in  this 
you  should  succeed  the  apostles,  seeing  (as  in  due  time  shall  be 
proved)  they  neither  were  such  priests  themselves  nor  ever  by 
ordination  delivered  any  such  priesthood.'' 

Thus,  when  brought  to  face  the  real  question,  does 
one  of  the  ablest  defenders  of  the  English  episco- 
pacy surrender  the  whole  High  Church  position. 
For,  without  again  showing  that  this  is  substituting 
anothersuccession,  another  ordination, for  that  which 
the  Reformers  received,  what  succession  does  Mason 
claim  for  the  Church  of  England  that  does  not 
equally  belong  to  other  Protestant  Churches  ?  If 
Cranmer,  on  Mason's  reasoning,  was  in  the  succes- 
sion, was  not  Luther,  and  Bucer,  and  Zwingle,  and 
Calvin,  and  Knox,  and  all  the  leaders  of  the  Pres- 
byterians and  their  successors? 

But  those  who  coin  the  phrase  ''  historic  episco- 
pate "  as  a  substitute  for  the  old  term   '*  apostolical 


IN   THE   CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND.  1 23 

succession,"  putting  the  emphasis  on  the  bare  idea 
of  episcopal  succession  and  thereby  diverting  at- 
tention from,  and  avoiding  the  difficult  and  danger- 
ous logical  consequences  of,  all  that  is  involved  in 
the  doctrine  of  "apostolical  succession*' — these 
advocates  would  deny  that  the  Reformers  named 
were  equally  in  the  succession  with  Cranmer  for  the 
reason  that  they  were  not  bishops,  were  not  ordained 
bishops  by  bishops,  and  therefore  did  not  receive 
episcopal  succession.  But  even  this  plea  will  not 
avail  anything.  For  not  only  did  the  Roman 
Church  deny  any  succession  to  the  Reformers,  and 
not  only  did  these  Reformers  renounce  all  claim  to 
succession  from  that  Church— Cranmer  himself  re- 
garding the  king  as  the  sole  authority  whence  he  de- 
rived his  power  to  act  as  bishop — but  they  went 
farther  and  challenged  the  claim  of  Rome  itself  to 
uninterrupted  episcopal  succession.  If  these  men 
did  this — and  there  is  abundant  proof  that  they  did 
— then  it  is  evident  that  they  did  not  believe  in  un- 
interrupted episcopal  succession  at  all,  and  there- 
fore they  could  not  have  intended  to  build,  and  did 
not  build,  the  Church  of  England  on  the  basis  of 
any  so-called  historic  episcopate.  Ridley,  bishop 
and  martyr,  denounced  Rome  in  the  fiercest  lan- 
guage as  the  bawd  of  Babylon,  the  wicked  limb  of 
antichrist,  a  bloody  wolf  that  made  havoc  of  the 
prophets  of  God.  Hooper,  bishop  and  martyr.  Arch- 
deacon Philpot,  and  Archbishop  Sandys  all  derided 


124  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

Rome's  succession.  Bishop  Pilkington  denied  that 
it  was  a  true  succession  which  godly  men  should 
reverence,  and  gives  a  list  of  the  wicked  popes,  with 
their  abominations,  saying,  ''  This  is  the  goodly  suc- 
cession. .  .  .  These  be  the  successors  and  fathers. 
.  .  .  God  defend  all  good  folk  from  all  such  doings," 
etc.  Nowell,  Dean  of  St.  Paul's,  Bancroft,  Grindal, 
Whitaker  all  attacked  Rome's  claim  to  succession. 
Whitaker  wrote : 

Faith  is,  as  it  were,  the  soul  of  the  succession,  which  faith 
being  wanting,  the  naked  succession  of  persons  is  like  a  dead 
carcass  without  a  soul. 

Bishop  Jewel  also  attacks  the  Roman  succession 
with  vigor  and  learning.  Like  Pilkington,  with  fine 
scorn  for  the  arguments  of  his  adversaries  he  draws 
out  the  long  catalogue  of  popes  who  hang  gibbeted 
on  the  pages  of  history  for  their  crimes,  and  points 
to  the  list  as  "  M.  Harding's  holy  succession."  And, 
lest  it  should  be  answered  that  the  iniquities  of 
these  popes  did  not  invalidate  the  power  originally 
given,  he  assails  the  historical  record  itself  and 
challenges  his  opponent  to  prove  the  first  link  in  the 
long-drawn  chain : 

Wherefore  telleth  us  M.  Harding  this  long  tale  of  succession  ? 
Have  these  men  their  own  succession  in  so  safe  record  ?  Who 
was,  then,  the  Bishop  of  Rome  next  by  succession  unto  Peter  ? 
Who  was  the  second  ?  Who  the  third  ?  Who  the  fourth  ? 
.  .  .  Hereby  it  is  clear  that  of  the  four  first  bishops  of  Rome 
M.  Harding  cannot  certainly  tell  us  who  in  order  succeeded  the 
other.  And  thus,  talking  so  much  of  succession,  they  are  not 
well  able  to  blaze  their  own  succession. 


IN   THE   CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND.  1 25 

Stillingfleet,  also  referring  to  this  Roman  succes- 
sion, says,  "  The  succession  here  is  muddy  as  the 
Tiber  itself."  And  again,  as  if  putting  the  question 
to  sleep  forever,  he  says : 

If  the  successors  of  the  apostles  by  the  confession  of  Euse- 
bius  are  not  certainly  to  be  discovered,  then  what  becomes  of 
that  unquestionable  line  of  succession  of  the  bishops'  churches, 
with  everyone's  name  set  down  in  his  order,  as  if  the  writer 
had  been  Clarencieux  to  the  apostles  themselves? 

Such  is  the  testimony  of  history  in  briefest  form. 
How  is  it  possible  that  such  testimony,  so  varied,  so 
extensive,  and  so  positive,  could  ever  have  existed 
if,  as  Anglicans  assert,  the  claims  they  now  make 
were  ever  held  by  the  Anglican  communion  prior  to 
1662,  when  the  Ordinal  was  changed  and  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Reformers  and  founders  of  the  Eng- 
lish Church  were  slit  in  the  ear  or  branded  on  the 
cheek,  while  those  who  approached  nearest  to  Rome 
were  considered  as  the  only  true  churchmen  ?  None 
of  the  Reformers,  neither  Cranmer,  nor  Ridley,  nor 
Latimer,  nor  Hooper,  nor  Jewel,  nor  Parkhurst,  nor 
any  of  those  who  laid  the  foundations  of  the  English 
Church  could  be  regarded  now  as  a  good  church- 
man. Had  there  been  no  Spanish  Armada,  the  de- 
feat of  which  annihilated  the  hopes  of  English  Cath- 
olics and  drove  them  by  thousands  into  the  Angli- 
can Church,  there  never  would  have  been  witnessed 
the  spectacle  of  excessive  ritualism,  priestly  forms, 
and  high  episcopal  assertions  now,  and  since  the  in- 
flux of  English  Catholics  into  the  national  Church, 


126  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

seen  and  heard  in  the  Church  of  England  and  in  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  communion. 

But  we  have  seen  on  what  slender  grounds  these 
Anglican  claims  rest.  We  have  shown  from  docu- 
ments relied  on  by  Anglican  writers  that  the  conse- 
cration of  Matthew  Parker,  notwithstanding  all  the 
arguments  in  its  favor,  is,  to  say  the  least,  extremely 
doubtful.  Its  validity  is  open  to  serious  objec- 
tion, and,  therefore,  all  ordinations  originating  in 
that  doubtful  act  cannot  themselves  be  otherwise 
than  doubtful.  We  have  also  seen  that  those  who 
are  said  to  have  consecrated  Parker  could  not  them- 
selves produce  unquestionable  credentials  of  their 
own  ordination ;  that  they  neither  believed  in  nor 
maintained  the  doctrine  of  the  historic  episcopate 
as  now  interpreted;  that  eminent  bishops,  martyrs, 
Reformers,  and  divines,  not  only  did  not  hold  to  that 
doctrine,  but  expressly  and  persistently  denied  its 
truthfulness  and  necessity  ;  and  that  the  Church  of 
England  in  her  books  of  ecclesiastical  authority, 
such  as  the  Ordinal  and  the  list  of  Articles  of  Re- 
ligion, repudiated  the  doctrine  now  falsely  attributed 
to  her  and  wrongfully  claimed  by  her  teachers  and 
divines.  We  have  seen  also  that,  even  if  the  claim 
now  made  had  any  historical  basis,  the  reception 
and  transmission  of  apostolical  succession  by  the 
founders  of  the  English  Church  Avere,  in  the  nature 
of  things,  an  absolute  impossibility  if  we  are  deal- 
ing  with   any    real   thing   and    not   manufacturing 


IN   THE   CHURCH    OF   ENGLAND.  12/ 

something  out  of  airy  nothing  in  the  fancy  fields 
of  fiction. 

We  do  not  believe  the  evidence  we  have  adduced 
can  be  set  aside  or  that  the  conclusions  we  have 
reached  can  be  destroyed.  We  are  confident  they 
will  stand  the  test  of  keenest  historical  research  ; 
and  every  attempt  to  refute  them  will  only  strengthen 
the  position  we  have  taken,  show  the  weakness  of 
Anglican  pretensions,  and  demonstrate  the  radical 
difference  between  the  teachings  of  present-day  High 
Churchism  and  the  doctrines  of  the  founders  of  the 
Church  of  England  in  the  Reformation  period. 

The  right,  then,  of  the  Church  of  England  or  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  to  lay  down  con- 
ditions of  union  with  other  Churches,  to  deny  the 
validity  of  the  ministry  of  those  Churches,  and 
thereby  to  leave  them  to  the  uncovenanted  mercies 
of  God — that  right  is  nothing  more  than  an  arrogant 
assumption  without  foundation  in  Holy  Scripture, 
in  history,  or  in  the  character  of  their  own  ministry. 
Protestant  imitations  of  papal  assumptions  have 
neither  the  dignity  of  antiquity  nor  the  prestige  of 
universality  to  commend  them  either  to  the  con- 
science or  the  reason  of  men  who  cannot  believe 
that  the  final  happiness  of  untold  millions  depends 
on  the  certainty  of  Matthew  Parker's  consecration, 
or  that  in  the  run  of  the  centuries  there  has  been 
no  break  in  the  mystic  flow  of  sacerdotal  grace  in- 
volved in  apostolical  succession.     The  ultimate  and 


128  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

inevitable  consequence  of  all  such  assumptions  is  the 
opening  of  the  well-defended  gates  to  the  Trojan 
horse.  The  undercurrent  of  the  Churches  mak- 
ing such  claims  is  necessarily  Romeward,  by  the 
momentum  of  ideas  arising  from  the  argument  of 
authority.  Between  papalism  and  evangelical  Chris- 
tianity there  is  no  logical  middle  ground,  and  the 
Protestant  Church  that  arrays  itself  in  the  borrowed 
plumes  of  Rome,  placing  more  emphasis  on  the 
things  that  are  peculiarly  Roman  than  on  those 
things  that  are  evangelical,  may  well  take  heed  that 
its  candlestick  is  not  removed  out  of  its  place,  or 
that  it  furnishes  no  modern  illustration  of  the  para- 
ble of  the  man  who  built  his  house  upon  the  sand. 


METHODIST    ORDERS.  I29 


CHAPTER   VII. 
Methodist   Orders— Outline  Statements 

REASONING  from  the  foregoing,  it  is  necessary 
to  consider  what  effect  the  conclusions  reached 
may  have  upon  the  vaUdity  of  Methodist  orders. 
The  first  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  established 
in  the  United  States  was  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.'  Like  the  primitive  Church,  in  the  strict- 
est sense,  which  began  with  the  Roman  empire  and, 
overcoming  all  barriers,  penetrated  to  its  utmost 
bounds,  Episcopal  Methodism  began  its  history 
with  the  birth  of  the  American  nation,  and  has  grown 
with  its  growth  till  its  amazing  successes  have  be- 
come in  a  large  degree  the  wonder  of  the  modern 
Church.  The  splendid  outburst  of  Tertullian  in  de- 
fense of  Christianity  against  the  opposers  of  his  day 
might  with  little  change  be  applied  to  the  marvelous 
career  of  this  organized  revival  of  primitive  Chris- 
tianity :  "  We  are  but  of  yesterday,  and  we  have 
filled  every  place  among  you — cities,  islands,  for- 
tresses, towns,  market  places,  the  very  camp,  tribes, 
companies,  palace,  senate,  forum  ;  we  have  left  noth- 
ing to  you  but  the  temples  of  your  gods.'"* 

But   notwithstanding  the  progress  of  this  phase 

'  Organized  December,  1784.  "^  Apologeticiis,  c.  xxxvii. 


130  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

of  evangelical  Christianity,  which  from  the  beginning 
has  been  one  of  the  most  potent  factors  in  the  reli- 
gious, political,  social,  and  intellectual  development 
of  Western  civilization,  and  notwithstanding  the 
many  evidences  of  divine  approbation  in  the  fulfill- 
ment of  its  mission,  the  legitimacy  of  its  ministry, 
in  common  with  the  ministry  of  other  Churches,  has 
been  a  constant  subject  of  controversy  from  the  be- 
ginning of  its  history  until  now  by  writers  of  High 
Church  proclivities  and  sturdy  advocates  of  the  so- 
called  historic  episcopate. 

The  arguments  reiterated  by  this  class  of  writers, 
as  if  they  had  never  been  disposed  of,  are  that  John 
Wesley,  the  founder  of  Methodism  in  England, 
never  intended  that  the  Methodists  should  become 
a  distinct  body  from  the  Church  of  England ;  that 
Wesley  never  intended  to  institute  episcopacy  for 
the  Methodists  in  the  American  States ;  that,  if 
he  did  so  intend  and,  in  fact,  did  ordain  Dr.  Thomas 
Coke  bishop  or  superintendent  with  that  view,  he, 
being  simply  a  presbyter  in  the  Church  of  England, 
possessed  no  authority  for  his  act ;  and  that,  there- 
fore, the  ministry  derived  from  such  source  is  ille- 
gitimate and  without  mission  or  jurisdiction. 

Nor  are  these  the  only  lines  of  opposition.  The 
previous  argument  we  have  pursued  against  the 
assumption  of  an  historic  episcopate  can  be,  and 
doubtless  will  be,  turned  against  us,  at  least  in  ap- 
pearance ;    for  if  ministerial  orders   in  the  Church 


METHODIST    ORDERS.  I3I 

of  England,  it  will  be  said,  rest  upon  such  doubt- 
ful foundations  as  we  have  shown,  then  orders  in 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  are  equally  doubt- 
ful, since  they  were  derived  from  a  minister  of  the 
Church  of  England.  Then,  again,  on  the  assump- 
tion that  English  orders  are  valid,  or  whether  they 
are  or  are  not,  the  ministry  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  it  will  be  asserted,  is  invalid  for  the 
reason  that  the  Church  of  England  never  gave  John 
Wesley  or  any  other  presbyter  authority  to  ordain. 
Further,  it  may  be  affirmed  that  the  arguments  which 
destroy  the  doctrine  of  the  historic  episcopate  are 
equally  destructive  to  the  doctrine  of  an  historic 
presbyterate,  or  uninterrupted  succession  of  elders, 
and  therefore  authority  is  again  wanting  in  the 
Methodist  eldership.  There  have  also  been  some 
able  Methodist  writers  who  have  endeavored  to 
shift  the  ground  of  Methodist  orders  and  to  place 
them  in  direct  succession  of  acknowledged  episcopal 
authority,  by  showing  that  Wesley  was  actually  or- 
dained to  the  episcopal  office  by  Erasmus,  a  bishop 
of  the  Greek  Church,  of  the  diocese  of  Arcadia  in 
the  isle  of  Crete. 

Evidently  it  is  not  our  purpose  to  evade  objec- 
tions. We  have  intentionally  stated  the  strongest 
possible  reasons  that,  we  think,  have  been,  or  can 
be,  urged  against  Methodist  orders.  And  this,  we 
believe,  is  as  it  should  be.  To  elaborate  the  com- 
monplaces of  ecclesiastical  polity  with  which  most 


132  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

ordinarily  well-informed  persons  are  familiar,  but 
avoiding  those  questions  which  are  of  genuine  crit- 
ical value  and  which  students  of  religious  history 
specially  investigate,  may  be  thought  sufficient  for 
those  who  are  happily  satisfied  with  the  broadest 
generalizations,  or  who,  through  defective  training 
or  through  erroneous  conceptions  of  the  question 
before  us,  may  have  very  little  interest  in  the  sub- 
ject. But  such  attempts  can  scarcely  be  considered 
worthy  of  the  theme  or  helpful  in  any  degree  to 
its  solution.  The  strongest  objections  to  Metho- 
dist orders  that  can  be  formulated  on  historic  or 
other  grounds  should  be  candidly  stated  and  as 
honestly  met ;  and  the  most  critical  investigation 
of  the  source,  nature,  and  authority  of  those  orders 
should  be  faithfully  and  logically  pursued.  Ingen- 
ious arguments  in  defense  of  any  cause  which  have 
no  foundation  in  reality,  but  depend  solely  for  their 
convincing  power  on  the  constructive  or  artistic 
skill  of  the  writer  to  arrange  his  material  or  to  color 
facts  otherwise  inimical  to  his  theory,  can  never  be 
relied  upon  in  the  building  of  a  structure  intended 
to  withstand  the  severest  tests  of  hostile  criticism. 
Such  arguments,  like  the  goodness  of  Ephraim  and 
Judah,  are  as  the  morning  cloud  and  the  early  dew  ; 
they  soon  pass  away.  Error  in  itself  has  no  element 
of  continuity.  Truth  alone  abides  forever.  There- 
fore dubious  principles,  doubtful  facts,  and  unwar- 
ranted inferences  are  discarded.     They  are  not  nee- 


METHODIST    ORDERS.  I  33 

essary  to  uphold  the  validity  of  that  ministry  which, 
by  its  unparalleled  successes  under  divine  grace 
working  through  it  to  the  salvation  of  countless 
multitudes,  has  demonstrated  its  divine  authority; 
nor  are  they  necessary  to  show,  either  from  a  scrip, 
tural  or  an  historical  standpoint,  that  that  ministry 
is  as  valid  as  any  ministry  which  ever  existed  or  now 
ministers  in  Christendom.  Nothing  is  of  value  that 
is  not  true. 

There  is  no  reason  why  any  objection  against  Epis- 
copal Methodist  orders  postulated  by  the  Church 
of  England  or  the  Protestant  Episcopal  communion 
should  be  avoided.  None  such  ever  have  been. 
The  Methodist  ministry  at  its  origin  held  the  same 
attitude  toward  the  High  Church  principles  of  the 
Church  of  England  that  the  founders  of  the  Church 
of  England  did  toward  those  same  principles  in  the 
Church  of  Rome.  Hence,  every  defense  of  their 
orders  made  by  those  Reformers  against  the  attacks 
of  the  Roman  Church  is  equally  valid  now  in  de- 
fense of  Methodist  orders  against  the  assaults  of  the 
historic  episcopate  party  in  the  Church  of  England 
or  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  The  his- 
torical parallel  is  complete.  Over  against  the  cor- 
ruptions of  papalism  against  which  the  Reformers 
struggled  we  may  place  the  dead  formality  of  the 
Church  of  England  in  the  eighteenth  century,  its 
practical  abandonment  of  its  divine  mission,  and  the 
almost  universal  diffusion  of  a  coarse-c^rained  ration- 


134  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

alism  which  was  eating  out  the  heart  of  faith  in  the 
supernatural  among  the  people  of  England.  The 
exclusive  claims  of  the  Roman  Church,  its  arro- 
gant pretensions  to  a  divinely  constituted  hierarchy, 
its  confident  appeal  to  antiquity,  and  its  intolerance 
of  all  movements  that  questioned  its  history,  its 
piety,  or  its  authority  were  all  mirrored  in  that 
simulacrum  of  a  Church  which  sat  in  judgment 
on  Methodists  and  denied  the  validity  of  their 
orders.  If  the  Reformers  denied  apostolical  succes- 
sion to  the  Church  of  Rome,  the  founders  of  Metho- 
dism with  equal  reason  denied  it  to  the  Church  of 
England.  For  it  could  never  be  asserted  that  that 
Church  possessed  better  claims  to  uninterrupted 
succession  than  the  Church  of  Rome,  from  which  it 
had  severed  itself  in  revolution.  If  the  Reformers 
discarded  all  authority  to  preach  the  word  of  God 
and  to  administer  the  holy  sacraments  by  virtue 
of  their  ministerial  character  derived  exclusively 
from  the  Church  of  Rome  as  such,  the  fathers  of 
Methodism  did  likewise  relative  to  any  power 
obtained  by  them  from  the  Church  of  England  as 
such  and  not  belonging  to  them  as  ministers  in 
the  universal  Church  of  God.  If  the  Reformers 
who  were  the  founders  of  the  Church  of  England, 
having  been  cut  off  as  schismatics  by  the  Church 
which  itself  had  proved  false  to  its  mission,  fell  back 
on  the  word  of  God  as  the  sole  authoritative  crite- 
rion of  Christian  faith  and  practice  and  on  the  inhcr- 


METHODIST    ORDERS.  1 35 

ent  rights  of  faithful  men  in  Christ  Jesus,  thus  as- 
serting their  allegiance  to  the  Gospel  rather  than 
subserviency  to  changeable  human  enactments,  so 
also  did  the  founders  of  Episcopal  Methodism  in 
the  duties  which  devolved  upon  them,  and  for 
similar  reasons.  Rejecting  the  demands  of  canon- 
ical law,  which  law  the  founders  of  the  Anglican 
hierarchy  had  themselves  violated,  and  laying  aside 
by  the  law  of  necessity  the  usages  of  ages,  as  the 
Reformers  also  did,  "  the  state  of  the  times  and  the 
exigency  of  affairs  rendering  it  necessary,"  the  found- 
ers of  the  Methodist  episcopate  went  back  of  Church 
canons  and  customs  and  behind  all  slowly  evolved 
theories  of  the  necessity  of  episcopal  ordination  to 
the  essential  validity  of  the  ministerial  function,  and 
vindicated  their  action  by  appeal  to  Holy  Scripture 
and  the  practice  of  the  primitive  Church.  If  appeal 
to  a  general  council  is  the  inalienable  right  of  the 
ministry,  this  appeal  to  Scripture  and  antiquity  by 
the  founders  of  Methodism  can  never  be  denied. 
Moreover,  whatever  right,  power,  faculty,  or  author- 
ity the  founders  of  the  Anglican  Church  possessed 
to  revolt  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  that  same  right 
belonged  to  the  fathers  of  Methodism  to  separate 
from  the  Church  of  England.  And,  whatever  right, 
power,  or  authority,  scriptural  or  ecclesiastical,  Wil- 
liam Barlow,  Miles  Coverdale,  and  John  Hodgkins 
had  to  consecrate  Matthew  Parker  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury  and   thus   establish  an    English  episco- 


136  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

pate,  John  Wesley  and  James  Creighton  also  pos- 
sessed the  same  right  to  ordain  Thomas  Coke 
Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Societies  in  the  United 
States  and  thus  establish  a  scriptural  episcopate  in 
the  New  World.  If  the  consecrators  of  Parker 
obeyed  the  commands  of  their  sovereign,  the  conse- 
crator  of  Coke  was  obeying  the  urgent  demands  of 
a  free  and  sovereign  people  who  owed  allegiance 
to  no  ecclesiastical  authority,  but  to  whom  he 
owed  special  care  and  oversight.  Whatever  can  be 
claimed  for  the  Anglican  episcopate  that  is  essential 
to  its  validity  cannot  by  any  show  of  fact  or  princi- 
ple of  reason  be  denied  to  the  Methodist  episcopate. 
It  is  wholly  gratuitous,  then,  to  assume  that  Epis- 
copal Methodism  is  illegitimate  in  its  origin.  Its 
foundation  is  as  solid  as  that  on  which  is  based  the 
venerable  Church  of  England.  To  that  Church — 
and  of  course  the  same  is  true  relative  to  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  denomination — Episcopal  Metho- 
dism concedes  no  ministerial  right,  power,  or  faculty 
to  preach  the  word  and  administer  the  sacraments 
which  she  does  not  with  equal  right  claim  for  her- 
self. Nor  is  Episcopal  Methodism  isolated  from 
the  catholic  Church  of  God.  All  that  is  of  the 
past  in  the  lives  and  labors  of  apostles,  prophets, 
teachers,  and  martyrs  belongs  to  her.  The  hymns 
of  the  ages  are  hers  ;  the  theology  of  the  earliest 
days  is  hers ;  reverent  regard  for  decency  and  or- 
der in  the  service  of  the  sanctuary,  as  is  set  forth 


METHODIST   ORDERS.  I  37 

in  the  Ritual,  is  characteristic  of  her  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  holy  sacraments.  Whatever  historic 
connection  the  Church  of  England  holds  with  the 
past  through  its  founders  Episcopal  Methodism 
also  holds  through  Wesley,  who  was  as  truly  a  con- 
necting link  with  the  English  episcopate,  he  having 
been  ordained  by  Archbishop  Potter,  as  the  English 
Reformers  were  with  the  Roman  episcopate.  Wes- 
ley certainly  had  the  same  right  to  ordain  that  the 
Reformers  had.  His  ordination  of  Dr.  Coke  was  as 
real  as  was  William  Barlow's  consecration  of  Mat- 
thew' Parker.  The  Methodist  episcopate  is  there- 
fore as  truly  historic  as  is  that  of  the  Anglican 
Church.  For  Methodist  ordinations  are  not  mere 
imitations  of  a  real  act.  They  are  not  pretended 
consecrations,  nor  are  they  mere  blessings  or  in- 
ductions to  office.  Ordination  in  Episcopal  Metho- 
dism is  the  solemn  endowment  of  authority  by  the 
Church,  acting  through  her  authorized  channels,  for 
the  functions  of  ministry  in  the  Church  of  God.  To 
the  Church  of  Christ  was  this  power  given ;  and  in 
the  exercise  of  that  power  Methodism  ordains  bish- 
ops, elders,  and  deacons.  This  is  her  intention,  and 
has  been  since  the  first  bishop  was  ordained,  or  con- 
secrated, by  her  authority,  as  is  evidenced  by  her 
ordination  formula:  *' The  Lord  pour  upon  thee 
the  Holy  Ghost  for  the  office  and  work  of  a  bishop 
in  the  Church  of  God  now  committed  unto  thee  by 
the  authority  of  the  Church  through  the  imposition 


138  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

of  our  hands,  in   the   name  of  the   Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.     Amen." 

Here,  then,  are  the  outHnes  of  the  subjects  inviting 
our  investigation.  The  authority  of  Mr.  Wesley  to 
ordain  and  to  originate  an  episcopacy,  and  whether 
he  intended  to  consecrate  Dr.  Coke  to  the  episco- 
pal office,  will  constitute  the  core  of  the  examina- 
tion. If  it  can  be  shown  by  unimpeachable  evi- 
dence that  Mr.  Wesley  did  have  authority,  such 
authority  as  the  founders  of  the  Church  of  England 
asserted  and  claimed,  then  it  will  follow  that  Meth- 
odist orders  are  as  valid  as  those  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  that  the  historic  episcopate  is  as  much 
a  fact  in  Episcopal  Methodism  as  it  is  in  the  Angli- 
can communion. 


ORDINATION    OF   WESLEY.  1 39 


CHAPTER    VIII. 
Ordination  of   "Wesley   by  a   Greek  Bishop. 

IN  defense  of  the  historic  episcopate  AngHcan 
writers  have  sometimes  endeavored  to  trace  the 
succession  of  EngHsh  bishops,  not  through  Rome, 
but,  through  Ephesus,  directly  to  the  apostle  John.' 
It  is  a  very  daring  feat,  this  attempted  Ephesian  suc- 
cession, and  is  accomplished,  with  commendable  skill, 
at  the  expense  of  history.  Some  Methodist  writers 
have  also  labored  to  prove  that  the  Rev.  John  Wes- 
ley, at  the  time  he  ordained  Thomas  Coke,  D.C.L., 
Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopalians  in  the 
United  States,  was  himself  a  validly  ordained  bishop 
according  to  the  rites  of  the  Greek  Church.  The 
Methodist  episcopate  would  therefore,  in  that  event, 
be  in  direct  succession  to  the  apostles  through  the 
bishops  and  patriarchs  of  the  Eastern  Church,  if  it 
could  be  proved  that  that  episcopacy  preserved  an 
unbroken  continuity. 

To  such  tactual  succession,  however.  Episcopal 
Methodism  has  never  laid  claim  ;  nor  would  assured 
possession  of  it  be  considered  as  any  greater  warrant 

^  Chapin,  Primilive  Churchy  p.  291.  Comp.  with  Lingard,  History 
of  England,  and  Alzog,  Universal  Onirch  History,  English 
translation.     See  also  Churton,  Early  English  Church,  pp.  17-19. 


140  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

for  the  genuineness  of  her  orders  than  the  author- 
ity she  has  exercised  from  the  beginning  as  a  true 
member  of  the  one  universal  body  of  Christ.  What 
Dean  SutcHffe,  an  eminent  champion  of  the  Angli- 
can Church  in  the  days  of  Queen  EHzabeth,  affirmed 
in  defense  of  that  Church  against  the  accusations 
of  the  Romanists  may  be  now  as  confidently  de- 
clared of  Episcopal  Methodism  :  ''  He  [that  is,  his 
Roman  opponent]  asserts  that  we  are  destitute  of 
the  succession.  And  he  thinks  that  we  are  terribly 
pressed  by  this  argument,  but  without  reason.  For 
the  external  succession,  which  both  heretics  often 
have  and  the  orthodox  have  not,  is  of  no  moment. 
Not  even  our  adversaries  themselves,  indeed,  are 
certain  respecting  their  own  succession,  which  they 
so  greatly  boast.  But  we  are  certain  that  our  doc- 
tors have  succeeded  to  the  apostles  and  prophets 
and  most  ancient  fathers."  But  since  the  ordina- 
tion of  Mr.  Wesley  by  a  Greek  bishop  has  been 
again  affirmed  with  some  show  of  documentary 
proof,  and  that  by  writers  whose  opinions  are  enti- 
tled to  respect,  and  since  we  are  desirous  of  reach- 
ing the  true  ground  for  Mr.  Wesley's  authority,  it 
is  fitting,  before  we  enter  upon  a  consideration  of 
the  known  facts  concerning  the  validity  of  Metho- 
dist orders,  to  carefully  examine  the  evidence  in  the 
case. 

What  are  the  facts?     In  1763  Erasmus,  a  bishop 
in  the  Greek  Church,  of  the  diocese  of  Arcadia  in 


ORDINATION    OF    WESLEY.  I41 

Crete,  visited  London  and  became  acquainted  with 
the  Rev.  John  Wesley  and  many  Methodist  preach- 
ers. At  that  time  the  Methodist  societies  were  in 
sore  need  of  ordained  ministers  who  might  lawfully 
administer  the  sacraments.  The  Anglican  bishops 
would  do  nothing.  Not  every  preacher  presented 
by  Wesley  for  ordination  could  annotate  a  Greek 
tragedy  or  write  a  disquisition  on  rare  exceptions 
in  Latin  syntax.  Thousands  throughout  the  king- 
dom were  hungering  for  the  bread  of  life  and 
clamoring  for  the  rites  of  religion.  The  intention 
of  many  preachers  to  step  over  legitimate  bounds 
and  to  administer  the  sacred  ordinances  was  pre- 
vented solely  by  the  restraining  influence  of  Wesley. 
But  every  day  the  pressure  increased  with  the  ex- 
pansion of  his  work  and  the  success  of  his  preachers. 
At  this  juncture  Mr.  Wesley,  who  made  a  broad 
distinction  between  a  preacher  and  a  pastor,  and 
deemed  it  sinful  for  an  unordained  person  to  exer- 
cise the  functions  of  a  consecrated  minister  applied 
to  the  visiting  Greek  bishop  to  ordain  for  him  some 
of  the  preachers.  The  request  was  granted.  But 
when  this  ordination  became  known  the  enemies  of 
this  new  Reformation,  fearful  of  the  mighty  impulse 
thus  given,  attacked  Mr.  Wesley  and  his  ordained 
helpers  with  such  virulence  that  one  of  those  or- 
dained severed  himself  from  the  Connection.  Mr. 
Wesley  him.self  was  publicly  taunted  with  having 

importuned    without    avail    the    Greek    bishop    to 
10 


142  THE    HISTORIC    EITSCOPATP:. 

ordain  him  to  the  episcopacy.  Rev.  Augustus  M. 
Toplady,  several  years  after  the  supposed  event, 
which  in  some  particulars  recalls  the  ordination  of 
Archbishop  Parker,  renewed  the  charge  in  public 
print  and  accused  Wesley  of  having  violated  the 
oath  of  supremacy.  "  Did  you  not,"  he  wrote,  ad- 
dressing Mr.  Wesley,  "  strongly  press  this  supposed 
Greek  bishop  to  consecrate  you  a  bishop,  that  you 
might  be  invested  with  a  power  of  ordaining  what 
ministers  you  pleased  to  officiate  in  your  societies 
as  clergymen  ?  "  Rev.  Rowland  Hill,  another  violent 
antagonist  of  that  day,  made  a  similar  charge. 

In  addition  to  this  evidence,  an  original  letter  by 
a  Rev.  Samuel  A.  Peters,  of  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal Church  and  at  the  date  of  the  letter  Bishop- 
elect  of  Vermont,  has  been  adduced,  with  other 
testimony,  by  an  able  advocate  of  the  Erasmian 
consecration.'  This  letter  was  written  to  the  Rev. 
Samuel  Coate,  Presiding  Elder  of  the  Lower  Canada 
District,  and  is  here  reproduced  for  due  consider- 
ation : 

CoRLEARs  Hook,  New  York,  A/ay  ii,  1809. 

Reverend  and  Dear  Sir  :  I  was  highly  entertained 
yesterday  at  the  Conference  in  John  Street,  at  which  presided 
the  Right  Rev.  Francis  Asbury,  Bishop  over  the  Methodist 
Churches  in  America,  whose  episcopal  authority  has  been 
spoken  against  by  some  of  the  Episcopalians  claiming  author- 
ity under  the  Latin  Church,  who  boldly  deny  the  validity  of 
Methodist  episcopacy,  and  found  their  assertions  on  a  point  by 
^no  means  certain — that  the  Rev.  John  Wesley  was  never  more 

*  See  Methodist  Quarterly  Rczneza,  January,  1S7S. 


ORDINATION    OF   WESLEY.  I43 

than  a  presbyter  in  the  Church  of  England,  and,  of  course,  could 
not  consecrate  Dr.  Coke,  Mr.  Asbury,  and  others  to  a  higher 
order  than  a  presbyter. 

I  took  it  for  granted  that  the  said  denial  was  made  with  a 
view  to  expose  the  Methodist  bishops  to  the  severity  of  the 
Prcemunire  Act  of  Henry  VIII  if  the  Methodists  should  prove 
that  the  Rev.  John  Wesley  was  consecrated  a  bishop  in  the 
Christian  Church  by  Erasmus,  a  Greek  bishop,  and  now  bishop 
and  successor  of  Titus,  first  Bishop  of  Crete.  But  if  the  Meth- 
odists do  not  come  forward  and  prove  Mr.  Wesley  to  be  a 
bishop  according  to  the  Greek  Church,  then  the  enemy  will  say 
the  Methodist  episcopacy  is  but  a  Latin  presbytery. 

Seeing  a  book  entitled  An  Enquiry  mto  the  Validity  of 
Methodist  Episcopacy,  and  considering  its  artful  tendency,  I 
published  a  vindication  of  the  Rev.  Hugh  Peters,  and  added 
a  note  which  gives  the  origin  of  Methodist  episcopacy  in  Eng- 
land. My  design  was  to  warn  the  Methodists  to  keep  out  of  the 
reach  of  the  English  PrcBniunire  Act,  and  to  let  their  enemies 
vaunt  over  their  own  bold  assertion  rather  than  to  expose  to 
certain  misery  and  death  their  pious  and  conscientious  bishops, 
who  would  sooner  run  their  heads  against  a  burning  mountain 
than  usurp  episcopacy. 

Had  I  been  present  when  Erasmus  consecrated  Mr.  John 
Wesley  a  bishop  in  the  Christian  Church  I  would  sooner  broil 
on  the  gridiron  with  St.  Lawrence  than  divulge  it  and  prove  it, 
so  long  as  the  English  Prcemtmire  Act  exists  as  a  pillar  to 
support  the  hierarchy  of  the  Church  of  England, 

Dr.  Seabury  I  introduced  to  Mr.  John  Wesley  after  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury  refused  to  consecrate  him  Bishop 
of  Connecticut,  and  Mr.  Wesley  would  have  consecrated  him, 
and  Dr.  Seabury  was  willing  to  be  consecrated  by  Mr.  Wesley  ; ' 
but  Mr.  Wesley,  by  the  best  advice,  would  not  sign  the  letter  of 
orders  to  Seabury  as  bishop  in  the  Christian  Church. 

Then  Dr.  Horn,  Bishop  of  Norwich,  Dr.  Barkley,  and  others 

'  Seabury  was  the  first  bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 
The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  refused  to  ordain  him  for  many 
reasons,  some  of  a  legal  character,  and  because  he  was  not  known  to 
be  the  choice  of  all  the  people. 


144  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

advised  Dr.  Seabury  to  receive  his  consecration  from  the  Jacob- 
ite bishops  in  Scotland,  who  are  not  State  bishops,  but  were  de- 
graded from  being  lord  bishops  because  they  would  not  take 
the  oath  of  allegiance  to  William  HI  in  1688. 

I  pretend  not  to  be  in  the  secret  of  the  consecration  of  Mr. 
John  Wesley  by  Erasmus,  but  I  am  so  convinced  of  the  fact 
that  1  would  as  soon  be  consecrated  a  bishop  in  the  Christian 

Church  by  Bishop  Asbury,  or ,  Bishop  Coke,  or , 

as  by  Dr.  Sutton,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  or  by  Dr.  Porteus, 
Lord  Bishop  of  London.  And  that  ih^jt^re  divino  of  episco- 
pacy from  Erasmus  came  from  St.  John  of  Jerusalem,  Rome 
and  England  admit ;  but  Rome  admits  not  the  jure  divino 
episcopacy  in  the  Church  of  England. 

The  question  still  remains, Was  Mr.  John  Wesley  made  a  bishop 
by  Erasmus,  now  Bishop  of  Crete  }  The  answer  is  valid  :  John 
Wesley  would  not  have  acted  as  bishop  if  he  had  not  been  con- 
secrated by  Erasmus,  nor  would  Dr.  Coke,  nor  Mr.  Asbury. 
etc.  Thus  believed  Dr.  Horn,  Dr.  Barkley,  Charles  Wesley,  and 
hundreds  of  others  who  knew  them  as  well  as,  reverend  and 
dear  brother,  Yours  affectionately, 

Samuel  A.  Peters. 

I  am  Bishop-elect  of  Ver(d)mont;  should  I  ever  go  there  or 
in  Connecticut,  I  would  solicit  a  consecration  by  a  bishop  in 
the  line  from  Erasmus,  in  order  to  be  free  of  error  supposed  to 
exist  in  the  Latin  Church. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Coate,  Pearl  Street,  New  York. 

The  author  of  this  letter  is  said  to  have  been  well 
known  to  several  Methodist  ministers,  one  of  whom, 
it  is  said,  has  left  the  following  fragment  of  a  con- 
versation held  with  Dr.  Peters  : 

*'  Dr.  Peters  informed  me  that  when  Dr.  Seabury 
was  refused  consecration  by  the  bishop  in  England 
the  said  bishop  told  him  he  was  prohibited  by  the 
law  of  the  realm  from  consecrating  him,  but  advised 
him  to  apply  to  Mr.  Wesley  for  consecration.     Dr. 


ORDINATION    OF   WESLEY.  I45 

Seabury  replied,  *  Is  Wesley  a  bishop?'  To  which 
the  bishop  answered,  ^  We  do  not  undertake  to  an- 
swer that  question.  It  is  not  for  us  to  determine. 
But  apply  to  him  ;  he  can  satisfy  you  and  conse- 
crate you.'  Dr.  Peters  was  present  at  the  interview, 
and  went  with  and  introduced  Dr.  Seabury  to  Mr. 
Wesley,  who  was  so  far  satisfied  that  he  would  have 
been  willingly  consecrated  by  him  if  Mr.  Wesley 
would  have  signed  his  letter  of  orders  as  bishop, 
which  Mr.  Wesley  could  not  do  without  incurring 
the  penalty  of  the  Prcemunire  Act.  He  would  have 
signed  as  superintendent,"  etc. 

Dr.  Peters  is  also  quoted  as  authority  for  the  fol- 
lowing :  "  A  clergyman  once  asked  Mr.  Wesley, 
*  Were  you  consecrated  bishop  by  Erasmus?'  Wes- 
ley replied,  *  Have  you  read  the  Prcemnnire  Act  ?  ' 
*Yes.'  'Would  you  have  me  answer  you  truly?' 
*Yes,  or  not  at  all.'  'Then,  under  the  circum- 
stances, I  cannot  answer  you.'"  This  is  all  the 
material  evidence  there  is  thus  far  to  prove  that 
Wesley  was  ordained  bishop  by  Erasmus  of  Crete. 
Inferences  there  are  many,  such  as  those  drawn  from 
the  autocratic  sway  of  Wesley  from  this  time,  his 
respect  for  episcopal  prerogatives,  and  from  the 
fact  that  he  never  did  categorically  deny  that  he 
was  ordained  bishop  by  the  Greek  Bishop  of  Ar- 
cadia. 

By  his  enemies  Wesley  was  taunted  with  having 
sought    episcopal    ordination.       But    there    is    as 


146  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

strong  evidence  at  least  that  Wesley  was  ordained  to 
the  episcopacy  by  Erasmus  as  there  is  that  William 
Barlow,  the  consecrator  of  Matthew  Parker,  was 
ever  ordained  Bishop  of  St.  David's.  The  Eliza- 
bethan bishops.  Jewel  and  others,  were  openly 
challenged  to  produce  authority  for  the  episco- 
pacy they  had  usurped.  The  evidence,  so  far  as  it 
goes,  is  given  by  one  who  knew  John  Wesley.  He 
also  affirms  that  he  is  so  confident  that  Wesley  was 
made  a  bishop  that  he  is  willing  to  receive  episco- 
pal ordination  from  Coke  or  Asbury.  According  to 
his  statements  he  was  not  the  only  one  who  believed 
as  he  did.  Dr.  Seabury,  the  first  bishop  of  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church,  is  declared  by  this  testa- 
tor, who  is  at  the  date  of  this  testimony  Bishop- 
elect  of  Vermont,  to  have  been  willing  to  receive 
episcopal  ordination  from  John  Wesley.  Dr.  Peters 
also  states  that  well-known  and  eminent  persons  be- 
lieved that  the  ordination  by  Erasmus  actually  oc- 
curred. The  conversations  reported  by  him  sound 
natural,  granting  the  circumstances.  And  if  it  be 
said  that  he  must  have  had  a  remarkably  long  mem- 
ory to  have  recalled  with  such  precision  particular 
events  and  conversations  of  forty-five  or  forty-six 
years  before  the  writing  of  this  letter,  it  may  be  re- 
plied that  such  a  feat  of  memory  is  no  more  astonish- 
ing than  the  extraordinary  ability  of  the  Earl  of 
Nottingham,  who  is  introduced  as  a  witness  by  An- 
glicans, testifying  that  the  Lambeth   register  pre- 


ORDINATION   OF   WESLEY.  147 

sented  to  him  for  identification  "was  ye  original 
he  saw  and  read  when  Archbishop  Parker  was  or- 
dained "  fifty-four  years  before. 

Thus  we  have  presented  this  evidence  in  the  most 
favorable  light.  But,  however  probable  from  this 
evidence  the  ordination  of  Wesley  may  seem,  we 
cannot  admit  the  fact  on  this  evidence  alone. 
Stronger  proof  must  be  produced.  The  same  rig- 
orous method  we  employed  in  dealing  with  the 
documentary  evidence  in  favor  of  Matthew  Parker's 
consecration  must  be  applied  to  this  also.  The  un- 
supported statements  of  the  letter  must  be  weighed 
in  the  balance.  The  author  of  the  letter  must  also 
be  considered  as  to  his  trustworthiness,  for  nothing 
should  be  accepted  as  true  that  cannot  withstand 
the  Ithuriel  touch  of  criticism. 

Who,  then,  was  this  Rev.  Samuel  A.  Peters  ?  He 
was  a  minister  of  the  Church  of  England  in  Hebron, 
Conn.  In  1774  he  went  to  England,  and  was  in  paro- 
chial charge  in  London  for  thirty  years.  Returning 
to  the  United  States,  he  was  elected  Bishop  of  Ver- 
mont, but  was  not  ordained,  not  through  any  fault  of 
his,  but  for  the  reason,  it  is  said,  that  the  Episcopal 
Convention  of  Vermont  had  not  signed  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  He  was  con- 
sidered by  those  who  knew  him — and  some  of  these, 
as  the  Rev.  Ezekiel  Cooper,  were  prominent  in  Meth- 
odist history — as  a  man  of  talent  and  of  erudition. 

Thus  far  he  seems  to  be  an  important  witness. 


148  THE   HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

But  historic  truth  forbids  that  he  should  hold  that 
distinction.  He  was  the  author  of  the  so-called 
''  Blue  Laws  of  Connecticut,"  '  and  the  character  he 
bears  as  the  author  of  a  History  of  Connecticut  ut- 
terly discredits  his  testimony  in  this  or  in  any  other 
case.  The  statements  he  makes  in  that  history  as 
sober  truth  can  be  equaled  only  by  the  impossibil- 
ities of  Baron  Munchausen. 

Analysis  of  Peters's  testimony  proves  its  worth- 
lessness  : 

1.  His  letter,  if  admitted  in  evidence  at  all,  admits 
that  he  was  not  present  when  the  ordination  was 
performed,  that  he  was  not  in  the  secret,  and  does 
not  mention  anyone  who  was.  His  information 
was  probably  absorbed  from  the  same  source  from 
which  Toplady  and  Rowland  Hill  drew  theirs — a 
floating  suspicion  at  the  beginning,  growing  out  of 
the  ordination  of  Dr.  Jones  by  Erasmus  at  Wesley's 
request,  developed  into  a  probability  because  of  its 
possibility,  and  finally  charged  home  as  an  accom- 
plished fact. 

2.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  persons  men- 
tioned as  believing  the  summons  really  believed  it. 
On  the  contrary,  the  Rev.  Charles  Wesley  could 
never  have  given  it  credence,  for  he  severely  criti- 
cised  his  brother  for  consecrating  Coke,  since  he 

^  For  an  account  of  him  see  Appleton's  Cychpcedia  of  American 
Biography ;  Sprague's  Annals,  vol.  v,  pp.  191-200;  also  article  on 
the  Blue  Laws  in  Methodist  Quarterly  Review,  January,  1878. 


ORDINATION    OF   WESLEY.  I49 

was  not  himself  a  bishop,  and  had  by  his  uncanon- 
ical  act  realized  the  Nag's  Head  fable  concerning  the 
consecration  of  Archbishop  Parker. 

3.  Certain  statements  in  the  letter  do  not  harmo- 
nize with  the  reported  conversations.  In  the  one  we 
are  told  that  Wesley  refused  because  of  the  Act  of 
P?'(Emunireto  admit  to  a  clergyman  that  he  had  been 
ordained;  but  in  the  other  he  admits  the  fact  to  Dr. 
Seabury,  and  not  only  admits  it,  as  he  must  have 
done  in  order  to  satisfy  Seabury  of  his  episcopal 
power,  but  is  willing,  according  to  this  testimony, 
to  ordain  Dr.  Seabury,  provided  the  law  can  be 
evaded  by  the  use  of  deceptive  terms.  Wesley  did 
employ  the  term  '' superintendent  "  in  the  letter  of 
orders  for  Dr.  Coke  ;  and,  in  addition  to  his  dislike  of 
the  term  "  bishop  "  as  an  official  designation  among 
the  Methodists,  subjecting  them  to  misunderstand- 
ing on  the  part  of  those  who  could  not  think  of 
a  bishop  other  than  as  a  mighty  lord  over  God's 
heritage,  he  may  have  used  it  as  a  matter  of  prudence, 
in  order  that  his  enemies  might  have  no  possible 
chance  to  bring  him  within  the  clutch  of  the  law. 
His  use  of  the  term  "■  superintendent,"  in  his  letter 
of  orders  for  Dr.  Coke,  could  in  no  wise  be  decep- 
tive, for  that  word,  the  Latin  for  the  Greek  cmoKono^, 
meant  precisely  what  he  intended  Coke  to  be — a 
scriptural  bishop,  and  not  a  bishop  according  to 
the  idea  of  a  bishop  then  prevalent.  But  he  could 
not  employ  that  same  term  in  a  letter  of  orders  for 


150  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

Seabury — for  that  was  not  wholly  what  Seabury 
meant  or  desired — without  being  deceptive  and 
without  violating  the  law  by  a  technical  evasion. 

The  Wesley  of  Peters  is  not  the  Wesley  of 
Methodism.  If  there  was  any  radiant  virtue  shin- 
ing brighter  than  another  in  the  character  of  that 
saintly  man  it  was  his  unfeigned  sincerity.  His 
was  a  nature  that  ever  sought  reality,  as  strong  na- 
tures ever  do,  and  as  sensitively  shunned  the  shad- 
owy and  illusive.  He  was  not  immaculate.  He 
was  not  infallible.  It  is  true  that  all  the  moral  or 
immoral  possibilities  of  human  nature  are  unknown 
to  us,  and  that  only  those  who  live  an  unreflective 
life  on  the  surface  of  things,  sublimely  unconscious 
of  the  unfathomable  depths  beneath,  can  ever  affirm 
with  unshaken  confidence  what  they  would  do  or 
would  not  do  in  every  circumstance  amid  the  en- 
tanglements of  our  complex  life.  We  sometimes 
change  places  with  circumstance,  and  he  who  is  the 
master  one  day  is  a  slave  the  next.  But  here  we 
are  dealing  with  no  ordinary  man.  Great  men  are 
like  mountains — they  must  be  looked  at  from  a  dis- 
tance in  order  to  be  seen.  The  softening  haze  of 
time  tones  down  the  crude,  everyday  conventional- 
isms which  reduced  them  while  living  to  the  uniform- 
ity of  a  dead  level  with  their  fellows,  and  magnifies 
those  qualities  which  won  for  them  an  epitaph  in 
history.  It  is  so  with  Wesley.  Few  men  probably 
have  ever  lived  who  combined  in  themselves  greater 


ORDINATION    OF   WESLEY.  151 

gifts,  both  spiritual  and  intellectual,  of  a  certain 
kind,  or  who  employed  those  gifts  to  more  practical 
or  more  beneficent  ends.  He  was  not  a  Newton, 
nor  was  he  called  to  exercise  his  powers  on  a  lofty 
scale  in  the  cabinets  of  diplomacy.  But  in  him  was 
the  genius  of  a  Richelieu,  the  organizing  power 
and  sublime  abnegation  of  self  in  obedience  to  a 
dominant  idea  characteristic  of  Loyola,  the  heroism 
of  a  Luther,  the  mildness  of  a  Melanchthon,  and 
the  spiritual  fervor  of  a  Kempis.  He  was  a  man 
sent  from  God,  a  marked  product  of  a  special  prov- 
idence. We  cannot,  therefore,  imagine,  while  yet 
leaving  a  margin  for  the  play  of  sinful  forces  in  hu- 
man nature,  that  Wesley  is  truthfully  represented 
in  this  letter  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Peters.  Living,  as  he 
did,  in  daily  communion  with  God  and  in  the  happy 
assurance  of  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  such 
subterfuges  and  unworthy  devices  are  unthinkable. 
Psychology  has  some  relation  to  history. 

Further,  we  have  Wesley's  own  denial  of  the 
charges  made  by  Toplady  and  the  Rev.  Rowland 
Hill.  Thomas  Olivers,  with  Wesley's  consent,  re- 
plied to  the  former,  and  denied  without  qualification 
that  Mr.  Wesley  ever  requested  Erasmus  to  ordain 
him  bishop.^ 

To  the  latter  Mr.  Wesley  himself  replied :  ''  I  never 
entreated  anything  of  Bishop  Erasmus,  who  had 
abundant  unexceptional  credentials  as  to  his  epis- 

1  Tyerman,  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  ii,  pp.  488,  489. 


152  THE    HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 

copal  character.  Nor  did  he  *  ever  reject  any  over- 
ture '  made  by  me.  Herein  Mr.  Hill  has  been  mis- 
informed. I  deny  the  fact  ;  let  him  produce  his 
evidence."  ' 

This  explicit  denial,  however,  is  not  considered  by 
some  as  necessarily  closing  the  case.  Wesley,  it  is 
argued,  did  not  deny  that  he  was  ordained,  but  only 
the  strictly  literal  statement  that  Erasmus  rejected 
his  overtures.  And  if  we  hold  by  the  exact  letter 
of  the  text,  as  Shylock  does  by  his  bond,  this  is  cer- 
tainly correct.  Wesley,  indeed,  does  not  say  with 
critical  precision  and  verbal  exactness  that  he  was 
not  ordained  by  Erasmus.  He  may  never  have,  in 
strict  etymological  definition  of  words,  "  entreated  " 
anything  of  Erasmus  ;  and  so  far  as  the  literal  record 
is  concerned  he  may  have  simply  asked  without  en- 
treating, and  Erasmus  may  have  complied.  He  was 
not  charged,  it  is  urged,  with  having  been  ordained, 
but  with  having  entreated  ordination,  and  Wesley 
denied  that  only  which  was  charged.  If  he  was  not 
ordained,  why  did  he  not  in  distinct  terms  deny 
that  fact  ?  By  such  reasonings  the  inference  is 
drawn  that  Mr.  Wesley  was  actually  ordained  to 
the  episcopacy  by  the  Greek  Bishop  of  Arcadia. 

Is  there  solid  ground  for  the  inference  ?  We 
think  not.  To  the  clear  intellect  and  quick  moral 
sense  of  Wesley  all  such  reasoning  would  have 
been  nothing  more  than  paltry  quibbling.     If  he 

'  Wesley,  Works,  vol.  vi,  p.  196. 


ORDINATION    OF   WESLEY.  1 53 

had  been  ordained,  of  what  value  would  a  mere  play 
upon  words  have  served  in  the  conflict  with  his  ad- 
versaries ?  True,  he  does  not  expressly  say,  *'  I  was 
not  ordained,"  but  only  that  he  did  not  entreat 
Erasmus  for  anything.  But  in  denying  that  does 
he  not  in  simple  truth  deny  all  that  it  implied,  and 
not  only  that  he  desired  to  be  ordained  bishop?  He 
did  not  fail  of  ordination  because  the  episcopal  au- 
thority of  Erasmus  was  doubtful,  for  he  says  that  that 
bishop  had  "  abundant  unexceptional  credentials  as 
to  his  episcopal  character."  Nor  did  he  fail  because 
Erasmus  refused  to  ordain  him.  He  failed  in  no 
sense  in  anything,  for  the  reason  that  he  neither 
entreated  nor  desired  anything  of  Erasmus.  Noth- 
ing need  be  plainer  than  that.  He  unequivocally 
says,  in  reply  to  Rowland  Hill,  "  I  deny  the  fact; 
let  him  produce  his  evidence."  Suppose  Rowland 
Hill  could,  by  testimony  obtained  from  Erasmus  or 
otherwise,  have  proved  that  Wesley  was  ordained 
bishop,  as  was  possible  if  Wesley  had  been  so  or- 
dained, would  Wesley's  technical  denial  that  he  had 
never  ''entreated"  Erasmus  have  been  of  any 
avail  in  the  judgment  of  the  world?  The  moral 
sense  of  mankind  would  have  condemned  the  finely 
drawn  distinction  of  the  casuist  and  despised  the 
moral  cowardice  of  the  carpet  reformer.  Wesley 
was  not  deficient  in  ethical  discrimination.  The 
denial  of  the  fact  charged,  which  charges  assume 
that  the  greater  act  was   not  accomplished,  carried 


154  'JTHE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

with  it  a  denial  of  the  whole  thing — ordination,  re- 
jection of  ordination,  rejection  of  request  for  or- 
dination. On  the  strength  of  that  denial  Mr.  Hill 
was  invited  to  produce  his  evidence,  which  he 
never  did,  as  Wesley  knew  he  never  could. 

Again,  of  what  value  could  such  an  ordination 
have  been  to  Mr.  Wesley?  He  knew  as  well  before 
the  ordination  as,  it  is  asserted,  he  did  after  that 
the  Prceinunire  Act  of  Henry  VHI  was  still  in  force. 
He  knew  that  he  could  never  exercise  episcopal 
function  in  the  realm  of  England  without  subjecting 
himself,  and  those  connected  with  him  in  the  Metho- 
dist movement,  to  the  severe  penalties  of  that  act, 
and  that  it  could  only  bring  disaster  without  any 
compensating  benefit.  But,  it  is  said,  by  virtue  of 
episcopal  ordination  he  would  have  been  enabled, 
in  harmony  with  his  lifelong  belief  in  episcopal  au- 
thority, to  consecrate  ministers  for  the  Methodist 
Societies  in  Scotland  and  America.  Why,  then,  in 
1780  did  he  apply  to  the  Bishop  of  London  to  or- 
dain for  him  even  one  minister  for  America  if  he 
himself  had  been  ordained  bishop  ?  And  why, 
when  he  did  consecrate  such  ministers  four  years 
after,  did  he  not  base  his  authority  for  the  act  on 
the  fact  of  his  own  ordination  by  this  successor 
of  Titus,  the  first  Bishop  of  Crete? 

Never  in  a  single  instance  does  he  appeal  to  any 
authority  or  power  of  order  derived  from  Erasmus. 
But,  like  the  Reformers  who  founded  the  Church  of 


ORDINATION    OF   WESLEY.  1 55 

England  and,  Avithout  lawful  episcopal  authority, 
originated  the  Anglican  episcopacy,  his  appeal  was 
to  the  New  Testament  and  the  earliest  practice  of 
the  primitive  Church.  On  that  sure  foundation 
and  his  providential  call  he  based  his  authority  for 
the  greatest  act  of  life. 

A  critical  estimate,  then,  of  the  evidence  in  the 
case  places  the  ordination  of  Wesley  by  Erasmus 
in  the  same  category  with  the  ordination  of  William 
Barlow.  Neither  of  them  can  be  proved,  but  both 
are  disproved  by  the  testimony  adduced  to  establish 
the  fact. 


156  THE    HISTORIC    ElTSCUry\TE. 


CHAPTER  IX. 
Episcopal  Ordination  of  Du  Coke. 

IN  September,  1784,  the  Rev.  John  Wesley,  assisted 
by  a  presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England  and 
two  other  elders,  ordained  by  solemn  imposition 
of  hands  the  Rev.  Dr.  Thomas  Coke  to  the  epis- 
copal office.  Advocates  of  the  historic  episcopate 
deny  the  validity  of  that  ordination  as  vigorously 
as  the  Greek  and  Roman  Churches  deny  the  valid- 
ity of  Anglican  orders.  The  uncanonical  character 
of  the  act  is  not  emphasized,  for  that  would  con- 
demn the  uncanonical  proceedings  of  some  Anglican 
ordinations  ;  and  for  this  other  reason,  that,  while 
uncanonically  conferred  orders  are  regarded  as  ir- 
regular, they  are  not  therefore  on  that  account  es- 
sentially invalid.  The  objection  to  Methodist  or- 
ders is  founded  on  the  assumed  lack  of  authority  in 
Mr.  Wesley,  and  on  the  further  fact,  as  is  supposed, 
that  Mr.  Wesley  did  not  intend  to  consecrate  Dr. 
Coke  bishop,  but  only  designed  by  a  solemn  and 
fitting  service  to  set  him  apart  to  an  indefinite  su- 
perintendency  or  oversight  of  the  Methodist  soci- 
eties in  North  America.  Absurd  as  this  attempt 
may  seem   to  charge  the  founders  of  Methodism  in 


EPISCOPAL   ORDINATION   OF   DR.    COKE.      1 57 

the  United  States  either  with  having  entered  into 
a  sacrilegious  conspiracy  to  snatch  episcopal  power 
by  deliberate  misconstruction  of  Wesley's  act,  or  as 
having  been  so  deficient  in  common  sense  and  in 
elementary  knowledge  of  ecclesiastical  forms  and 
usages,  notwithstanding  they  belonged  to  the 
Church  of  England,  that  they  did  not  comprehend 
the  significance  of  Dr.  Coke's  consecration,  igno- 
rantly  assuming  that  Wesley  intended  episcopacy 
when  he  did  not,  yet  such  objection  has  been  the 
standing  argument  of  Anglicans  from  the  beginning 
of  Episcopal  Methodism  until  now,  and  has  even 
sometimes  appeared,  though  in  modified  form,  in 
the  works  of  Methodist  writers  on  our  ecclesiastical 
polity  both  in  this  country  and  in  England. 

In  the  investigation  of  this  subject  we  have  be- 
fore us  the  act,  the  intention  of  the  act,  and  the 
authority  for  the  act.  That  the  act  of  ordination 
was  performed,  or  that  some  ceremony  was  held  by 
which  Mr.  Wesley  gave  some  special  authority  to 
Dr.  Coke  to  exercise  ordaining  and  supervisory 
powers  over  Methodist  societies  in  North  America, 
is  not  disputed.  On  this  point  all  are  agreed,  and 
we  need  not  encumber  the  subject  with  needless 
discussion.  The  authority  for  the  act  may  Se  con- 
sidered later,  when  it  is  clearly  understood  what  the 
act  was  ;  for  unless  we  apprehend  the  real  nature  of 
the  act  itself  the  question  of  authority  is  an  indif- 
ferent matter.  We  have,  then,  before  us  the  simple 
11 


158  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

question,  Did  Mr.  Wesley  intend  to  ordain  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Coke  a  bishop  for  the  Methodists  in  the 
United  States  ? 

In  order  to  reach  a  solution  of  this  question  in 
the  light  of  Anglican  objections,  which  conclusion 
shall  be  in  harmony  with  all  the  facts  in  the  case,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  consider,  though  briefly,  the 
material  circumstances  out  of  which  the  ordination 
grew. 

For  a  period  of  some  forty  years  prior  to  the 
consecration  of  Dr.  Coke  Mr.  Wesley  had  aban- 
doned the  High  Church  principles  of  ministerial  or- 
ders which  he  once  held  with  reverent  loyalty. 
In  his  early  days  he  believed  in  three  divinely  es- 
tablished orders,  in  apostolical  succession,  in  the 
supreme  authority  of  bishops,  and  that  no  one  had 
the  right  to  administer  the  holy  sacraments  without 
permission  from  bishops  in  direct  succession  from 
the  apostles.  In  1746  his  views  underwent  a 
change.  The  character  of  the  ^york  in  which  he 
had  been  engaged  and  the  extraordinary  develop- 
ments of  it  in  all  parts  of  the  kingdom  broadened 
his  sympathies,  and  gradually  led  him  in  various 
ways  to  look  beyond  the  narrow  ecclesiasticism  in 
which  his  prejudices  had  been  nurtured  and  to  ex- 
amine seriously  the  reasons  for  dissenting  belief 
and  practice.  On  a  journey  to  Bristol,  this  same 
year,  he  read  a  work  on  Church  government  by  an 
eminent  Dissenter,  Peter  King,  Lord   High  Chan- 


EPISCOPAL   ORDINATION    OF   DR.    COKE.      1 59 

ccUor  of  England,  entitled  An  Inquiry  into  the 
Constitution,  Discipline,  Unity,  and  Worship  of  the 
Primitive  Church.  The  principles  enunciated  in 
that  little  book  with  clearness,  and  strongly  sup- 
ported by  Scripture  and  patristic  citations,  were 
that  a  presbyter  is  a  person  in  holy  orders,  having 
thereby  an  inherent  right  to  perform  the  whole 
office  of  a  bishop  ;  that  bishops  and  presbyters  are 
of  the  same  order,  but  differ  in  degree ;  and  that, 
therefore,  though  a  presbyter  by  his  ordination  has 
as  ample  inherent  right  and  power  to  discharge  all 
clerical  offices  as  any  bishop,  yet  peace,  unity,  and 
order  oblige  him  not  to  invade  the  privileges 
granted  to  bishops  by  custom  of  the  Church. 

The  argument  of  Lord  King  made  a  profound 
impression  on  the  mind  of  Wesley.  In  his  Journal, 
under  date  of  January  20,  1746,  he  writes  : 

I  set  out  for  Bristol.  On  the  road  I  read  over  Lord  King's 
account  of  the  primitive  Church.  In  spite  of  the  vehement 
prejudice  of  my  education,  I  was  ready  to  believe  that  this  was 
a  fair  and  impartial  draft ;  but,  if  so,  it  would  follow  that 
bishops  and  presbyters  are  (essentially)  of  one  order,  and 
that  originally  every  Christian  congregation  was  a  church  in- 
dependent of  all  others. 

He  also  read  Stillingfleet's  Irenicon.  The  con- 
clusions reached  in  that  work  were  that  Christ 
did  not  determine  the  form  of  Church  government 
by  positive  laws ;  that  episcopacy  was  lawful,  but 
not  necessary ;  that  bishops  and  presbyters  were 
of  the  same  order ;  and   that  the  founders  of  the 


l6o  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

Church  of  England  did  not  hold  to  the  divine  right 

of  episcopacy.     The  influence   of  these  works   on 

the  views  of  Wesley  is  visible  in  the  Conferences  he 

held   with  his  preachers  and  in  his  correspondence 

with    various    persons    on    the  subject.     The  year 

after  the  reading  of  Lord  King's  work  the  whole 

question  of  Church  government  was  gone  over  in  the 

Conference  at  London,  and  the  conclusion  reached 

that  no  binding  form  of  government  for  the  Church 

was  laid  down  in  the  New  Testament.     Nine  years 

later  his  convictions  are  the  same.     July  3,  1756,  he 

writes  to  a  minister  in  the  Church  of  England  : 

As  to  my  own  judgment,  I  still  believe  "  the  episcopal  form 
of  Church  government  to  be  scriptural  and  apostolical;"  I 
mean,  well  agreeing  with  the  practice  and  writings  of  the  apos- 
tles. But  that  it  is  prescribed  in  Scripture  I  do  not  believe. 
This  opinion,  which  I  once  zealously  espoused,  I  have  been 
heartily  ashamed  of  ever  since  I  read  Bishop  Stillingfleet's 
Jrem'con.  I  think  he  has  unanswerably  proved  that  "  neither 
Christ  nor  his  apostles  prescribe  any  particular  form  of  Church 
government,  and  that  the  plea  of  divine  right  for  diocesan 
episcopacy  was  never  heard  of  in  the  primitive  Church."  * 

Apostolical  succession  vanishes  in  the  presence  of 
such  beliefs.  Over  his  own  signature,  February 
19,  1761,  Wesley  wrote:  ''I  deny  that  the  Romish 
bishops  came  down  by  uninterrupted  succession 
from  the  apostles.  I  never  could  see  it  proved,  and 
I  am  persuaded  I  never  shall.""  This  signified  a 
denial  also  of  uninterrupted  succession  in  the  An- 

*  Wesley,  Works,  vol.  vii,  p.  284,  Letter  to  Rev.  Mr.  Clarke. 
^  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  90. 


EPISCOPAL    ORDINATION    OF   DR.    COKE.      l6l 

glican  Church,  and  that  Wesley  had  at  that  date 
forever  broken  with  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  right 
of  episcopacy.  His  declaration  years  afterward  to 
his  brother,  Charles  Wesley,  "  The  uninterrupted 
succession  I  knov^  to  be  a  fable  which  no  man  ever 
did  or  can  prove,"  was  only  the  expression  of  a  be- 
lief held  for  forty  years  previously. 

Lord  King  in  his  account  of  the  primitive  Church 
had  said  :  "  As  for  ordination,  I  find  but  little  said 
of  this  in  antiquity ;  yet,  as  little  as  there  is,  there 
are  clearer  proofs  of  the  presbyters  ordaining  than 
there  are  of  their  administering  the  Lord's  Supper;" 
and  he  quotes  Firmilian,  in  his  Epistle  to  Cyprian : 
**  All  power  and  grace  is  constituted  in  the  Church, 
where  seniors  preside  who  have  the  power  of  baptiz- 
ing, confirming,  and  ordaining."  In  June,  1780, 
Mr.  Wesley,  referring  to  some  doubts  and  pruden- 
tial observations  of  his  brother  Charles,  writes: 

Read  Bishop  Stillingfleet's  Irenicon,  or  any  impartial  history 
of  the  ancient  Church,  and  I  believe  you  will  think  as  I  do.  I  verily 
believe  I  have  as  good  a  right  to  ordain  as  to  administer  the 
Lord's  Supper.  But  I  see  abundant  reasons  why  I  should  not 
use  that  right,  unless  I  was  turned  out  of  the  Church.  At  present 
we  are  just  in  our  place. 

Such  were  Wesley's  beliefs  concerning  Church 
government  and  ministerial  orders,  from  1746  to 
1780,  a  period  of  thirty-four  years,  comprising  the 
most  vigorous  and  the  most  intellectually  active 
period  of  his  long  and  laborious  life.  Four  years 
later  he  put  those  beliefs  into  practice. 


1 62  THE   HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

Let  US  summarize  those  beliefs:  i.  No  form  o. 
government  is  prescribed  in  Scripture  binding  per- 
petually on  all  Churches.  2.  Episcopal  government 
is  agreeable  to  Scripture  and  the  practice  of  the 
primitive  Church.  3.  Uninterrupted  succession  of 
series  of  episcopally  ordained  bishops  from  the  days 
of  the  apostles  is  a  fable.  4.  There  are  not  three 
distinct  and  divinely  constituted  orders  in  the  Chris- 
tian ministry.  5.  Bishops  and  presbyters  are  essen- 
tially one  and  the  same  order.  6.  Presbyters,  by 
virtue  of  their  order,  have  inherent  right  to  perform 
all  the  functions  of  a  bishop— to  baptize,  administer 
the  Lord's  Supper,  and  to  ordain.  7.  John- Wesley 
was  a  presbyter;  he  therefore  had  the  same  inherent 
right  to  ordain  as  to  administer  the  Lord's  Supper. 

We  may  now  consider  another  array  of  facts. 
For  many  years  prior  to  the  ordination  of  Dr.  Coke, 
Mr.  Wesley  was  importuned  by  the  preachers  in 
America  to  send  them  ordained  ministers  who 
might  administer  the  ordinances  of  religion  to  the 
thousands  who  were  like  sheep  in  the  wilderness. 
For  legal  reasons  Mr.  Wesley  refused.  The  colonies 
were  under  the  spiritual  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop 
of  London.  Respect  for  the  canons  of  his  Church 
and  for  the  most  ancient  canons  of  the  universal 
Church,  as  those  of  Niceae  and  Antioch,  restrained 
him  from  violating  the  rights  lawfully  held  by  an- 
other. But  the  condition  of  the  Methodists  in 
America  grew  worse.     The  situation  was  becoming 


EPISCOPAL   ORDmATION   OF   DR.    COKE.      1 63 

critical ;  strife,  schism,  and  other  evils  were  begin- 
ning to  undermine  the  marvelous  work  of  God. 
The  future  of  Methodism  was  full  of  anxiety  and 
gloom.  Mr.  Wesley  was  again  appealed  to,  for  to 
him  the  Methodists  looked  as  the  only  one  whom 
all  would  obey.  In  his  profound  solicitude  for  the 
sheep  without  a  shepherd  he  addressed  two  letters 
to  Dr.  Lowth,  Bishop  of  London,  requesting  him 
to  ordain  even  one  preacher  who  might  minister  to 
the  necessities  of  the  people.  The  only  reply  he 
received  was,  ^'  There  are  three  ministers  in  that 
country  already."  Wesley  answered  :  '^  What  are 
three  to  watch  over  all  the  souls  in  that  extensive 
country?  ...  I  mourn  for  poor  America,  for  the 
sheep  scattered  up  and  down  therein.  Part  of  them 
have  no  shepherds  at  all,  particularly  in  the  north- 
ern colonies  ;  and  the  case  of  the  rest  is  little  better, 
for  their  own  shepherds  pity  them  not." 

As  the  American  colonies,  through  the  obstinacy 
of  George  III,  were  lost  forever  to  the  English 
crown,  so  through  the  short-sighted  policy  of  the 
Anglican  bishops  and  the  favor  of  Heaven  the 
Methodists  of  the  United  States  were  forever  lost 
to  the  Church  of  England. 

The  triumph  of  the  American  arms  in  the  war  for 
independence  dissolved  all  ecclesiastical  bonds  that 
united  the  colonial  Church  to  Anglican  authority. 
The  jurisdiction  formerly  maintained  was  lost;  the 
Church    itself  became    extinct.     This   providential 


164  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

state  of  affairs  left  Wesley  no  alternative.  What- 
ever reasons  he  might  have  alleged  years  before  for 
refraining  from  ordaining  helpers  were  baseless  now. 
The  way  was  cleared  for  him,  by  a  providential  chain 
of  events  over  which  he  had  no  control,  to  exercise 
the  inherent  rights  he  possessed  to  provide  for  these 
people,  and  that  without  violating  either  the  laws  of 
his  country  or  invading  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Eng- 
lish bishops.  The  time  had  come  for  him  to  act, 
and  he  resolved  to  delay  no  longer.  Here,  then,  are 
the  two  reasons  for  this  momentous  event — the  be- 
liefs of  Wesley,  and  the  extraordinary  demands 
made  upon  him.  These  two  conditions  met ;  what 
was  the  outcome? 

In  February,  1784,  Mr.  Wesley  held  a  private 
conference  with  the  Rev.  Thomas  Coke,  LL.D.,  a 
presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England,  whose  gifts, 
grace,  and  usefulness  had  already  distinguished  him 
among  Methodist  preachers  and  had  commended 
him  to  Mr.  Wesley  as  a  suitable  person  to  take  care 
of  the  difficult  and  responsible  work  beyond  the 
sea.  In  his  private  chamber  Wesley  introduced  the 
subject  in  substance  as  follows: 

That,  as  the  revolution  in  America  had  separated  the  United 
States  from  the  mother  country  forever,  and  the  episcopal  es- 
tabhshment  was  utterly  abolished,  the  societies  had  been  rep- 
resented to  him  in  a  most  deplorable  condition.  That  an  ap- 
peal had  also  been  made  to  him  through  Mr.  Asbury,  in  which 
he  was  requested  to  provide  for  them  some  mode  of  Church 
government  suited  to  their  exigencies;  and  that,  having  long 


EnSCOPAL    ORDINATION    OF   DR.    COKE.      1 65 

and  seriously  revolved  the  subject  in  his  thoughts,  he  intended 
to  adopt  the  plan  which  he  was  now  about  to  unfold.  That,  as  he 
had  invariably,  in  every  step  he  had  taken,  to  keep  as  closely  to  the 
Bible  as  possible,  so,  on  the  present  occasion,  he  hoped  he  was 
not  about  to  deviate  from  it.  That,  keeping  his  eye  upon  the 
conduct  of  the  primitive  Churches  in  the  ages  of  unadulterated 
Christianity,  he  had  much  admired  the  mode  of  ordaining  bish- 
ops which  tb.e  Church  of  Alexandria  had  practiced.  That,  to 
preserve  its  purity,  that  Church  would  never  suffer  the  interfer- 
ence of  a  foreign  bishop  in  any  of  their  ordinations  ;  but  that 
the  presbyters  of  that  venerable  apostolic  Church,  on  the  death 
of  a  bishop,  exercised  the  right  of  ordaining  another  from  their 
own  body  by  the  laying  on  of  their  own  hands;  and  that  this  prac- 
tice continued  among  them  for  two  hundred  years,  till  the  days 
of  Dionysius.  And  finally,  that,  being  himself  a  presbyter,  he 
wished  Dr.  Coke  to  accept  ordination  from  his  hands,  and  to 
proceed  in  that  character  to  the  continent  of  America  to  super- 
intend the  societies  in  the  United  States.* 

This  proposition  was  listened  to  with  surprise  and 

received  with  hesitation.  Dr.  Coke  frankly  expressed 

his  doubts  as  to  Wesley's  authority  to  confer  valid 

ordination.     Wesley  referred  him  to  the  arguments 

of  Lord  King,  and  gave  him  time  for  deliberation. 

In  less  than  two   months   Dr.  Coke  informed  Mr. 

Wesley  that  he  was  ready  to  receive  ordination  at  his 

hands  and  to  cooperate  with  him  in  the  great  work  : 

Honored  AND  Dear  Sir:  The  more  maturely  I  consider 
the  subject  the  more  expedient  it  appears  to  me  that  the  power 
of  ordaining  others  should  be  received  by  me  from  you,  by  the 
imposition  of  your  hands.'' 

The  result  was  that  Wesley  wrote  Dr.  Coke  to 
come  to  Bristol   and  to  bring  with  him  the   Rev. 

'  Drew,  Life  of  Dr.  Coke,  pp.  71,  72. 
^  Moore,  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  ii,  p.  276. 


1 66  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

Mr.  Creighton,  a  regularly  ordained  presbyter  of  the 
Church  of  England.  Accordingly,  the  doctor  and 
Mr.  Creighton  met  him  at  Bristol.  With  their  assist- 
ance he  ordained  Mr.  Richard  Whatcoat  and  Mr. 
Thomas  Vasey  presbyters  for  America;  and,  being 
peculiarly  attached  to  every  rite  of  the  Church  of 
England,  did  afterward  ordain  Dr.  Coke  a  superin- 
tendent, giving  him  letters  of  ordination  under  his 
hand  and  seal.' 

The  ordination,  it  may  be  affirmed,  was  according 
to  the  ritual  prepared  by  Mr.  Wesley  for  the 
Methodists  in  America.  Wesley  was  *'  peculiarly 
attached  to  every  rite  of  the  Church  of  England." 
The  Book  of  Common  Prayer  used  by  that  Church 
was  adapted  by  him — he  having,  as  he  wrote  in  the 
Preface,  made  "  little  alteration  "  in  it — to  the  re- 
quirements of  the  American  Church.  This  Book 
of  Common  Prayer,  under  the  title,  The  Sunday 
Service  of  the  Methodists  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  with  Other  Occasional  Services,  was 
brought  by  Dr.  Coke  to  the  first  General  Confer- 
ence and  adopted  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  then  organized.  The  Preface  to  this  Sun- 
day Service,  signed  by  John  Wesley,  is  dated  "  Bris- 
tol, September  9,  1784,"  that  is,  seven  days  after 
the  ordination  of  Dr.  Coke.  This  Service  con- 
tained forms  for  the  ordination  of  superintend- 
ent, elders,  and  deacons,  similar  to  the  ordination 

^  Coke  and  Moore,  Life  of  Wesley^  p.  459. 


EPISCOPAL    ORDINATION    OF    DR.    COKE.      \6j 

forms  of  the  English  Prayer  Book.  For  the  word 
**  bishop  "  in  that  book  Wesley  substituted  its  Latin 
equivalent  superintendent,  and  for  *' priests"  he 
used  the  word  ''  elders." 

Of  the  letters  of  ordination  above  mentioned  the 
following  is  a  faithfully  transcribed  copy  by  Mr. 
Drew  from  the  original  in  Mr.  Wesley's  own  hand- 


To  All  to  whom  these  presents  shall  come,  John 
Wesley,  late  Fellow  of  Lincoln  College  in  Oxford, 
Presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England,  sendeth 
greeting  :  Whereas  many  of  the  people  in  the  southern 
provinces  of  North  America,  who  desire  tc  continue  under  my 
care  and  still  adhere  to  the  dt)ctrine  and  discipline  of  the 
Church  of  England,  are  greatly  distressed  for  want  of  minis- 
ters to  administer  the  sacraments  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper,  according  to  the  usage  of  the  same  Church,  and 
whereas  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any  other  way  of  supply- 
ing them  with  ministers,  know  all  men  that  I,  John  Wesley, 
think  myself  to  be  providentially  called  at  this  time  to  set  apart 
some  persons  for  the  work  of  the  ministry  in  America.  And 
therefore,  under  the  protection  of  Almighty  God  and  with  a 
single  eye  to  his  glory,  I  have  this  day  set  apart  as  a  superin- 
tendent by  the  imposition  of  my  hands  and  prayer  (being  as- 
sisted by  other  ordained  ministers)  Thomas  Coke,  Doctor  of 
Civil  Law,  a  presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England  and  a  man 
whom  I  judge  to  be  well  qualified  for  that  great  work.  And  I 
do  hereby  recommend  him  to  all  whom  it  may  concern  as  a 
fit  person  to  preside  over  the  flock  of  Christ.  In  testimony 
whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  seal  this  second  day 
of  September,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  seven  hun- 
dred and  eighty-four.  John  Wesley. 

Over  two  weeks  elapsed  before  Dr.  Coke,  with 
his  companions,  sailed  for  the  United  States.     Dur- 


1 68  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

ing  this  interval  Mr.  Wesley  prepared  the  following 
letter,  which  Dr.  Coke  was  directed  to  print  and  cir- 
culate among  the  societies  on  his  arrival : 

Bristol,  Septcinber  lo,  1784. 

To  Dr.  Coke,  Mr.  Asbury,  and  our  Brethren  in 
NORIH  America  :  By  a  very  uncommon  train  of  providences 
many  of  the  provinces  of  North  America  are  totally  disjoined 
from  the  mother  country  and  erected  into  independent  States. 
The  English  government  has  no  authority  over  them,  either 
civil  or  ecclesiastical,  any  more  than  over  the  States  of  Holland. 
A  civil  authority  is  exercised  over  them,  partly  by  the  Congress, 
partly  by  the  provincial  assemblies.  But  no  one  either  exer- 
cises or  claims  any  ecclesiastical  authority  at  all.  In  this  pe- 
culiar situation  some  thousands  of  the  inhabitants  of  these 
States  desire  my  advice,  and  in  compliance  with  their  desire  I 
have  drawn  up  a  little  sketch. 

Lord  King's  account  of  the  primitive  Church  convinced  me 
many  years  ago  that  bishops  and  presl)yters  are  the  same  order 
and  have  consequently  the  same  right  to  ordnin.  For  many  years 
I  have  been  importuned,  from  time  to  time,  to  exercise  this  right 
by  ordaining  part  of  our  traveling  preachers.  But  I  have  still 
refused,  not  only  for  peace'  sake,  but  because  I  was  determined 
as  little  as  possible  to  violate  the  established  order  of  the 
national  Church  to  which  I  belonged. 

But  the  case  is  widely  different  between  England  and  North 
America.  Here, there  are  bishops  who  have  a  legal  jurisdic- 
tion. In  America  there  are  none,  neither  any  parish  minister; 
so  that  for  some  hundreds  of  miles  together  there  is  none  either 
to  baptize  or  to  administer  the  Lord's  Supper.  Here,  there- 
fore, my  scruples  are  at  an  end,  and  I  conceive  myself  at  full 
liberty,  as  I  violate  no  order  and  invade  no  man's  right  by 
appointing  and  sending  laborers  into  the  harvest. 

I  have  accordingly  appointed  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Francis 
Asbury  to  be  joint  superintendents  over  our  brethren  in  North 
America ;  as  also  Richard  Whatcoat  and  Thomas  Vasey  to 
act  as  elders  among  them,  by  baptizing  and  administering  the 
Lord's  Supper.     And  I  have  prepared  a  liturgy,  little  differing 


EPISCOPAL   ORDINATION    OF   DR.  COKE.      1 69 

from  that  of  the  Church  of  England  (t  think  the  l)est  consti- 
tuted national  Church  in  the  world),  which  I  advise  all  the 
traveling  preachers  to  use  on  the  Lord's  day  in  all  the  congre- 
gations, reading  the  Litany  only  on  Wednesdays  and  Fridays, 
and  praying  extempore  on  all  other  days.  I  also  advise  the 
elders  to  administer  the  Supper  of  the  Lord  on  every  Lord's 
day. 

If  anyone  will  point  a  more  rational  and  scriptural  way  of 
feeding  and  guiding  these  poor  sheep  in  the  wilderness  I  will 
gladly  embrace  it.  At  present  I  cannot  see  any  better  method 
than  that  I  have  taken. 

It  has,  indeed,  been  proposed  to  desire  the  English  bishops 
to  ordain  part  of  our  preachers  for  America.  But  to  this  I  ob- 
ject: I.  I  desired  the  Bishop  of  London  to  ordain  one,  but 
could  not  prevail.  2.  If  they  consented  we  know  the  slowness 
of  their  proceedings  ;  but  the  matter  admits  of  no  delay.  3.  If 
they  would  ordain  them  now  they  would  expect  to  govern 
them.  And  how  grievously  would  this  entangle  us!  4.  As 
our  American  brethren  are  now  totally  disentangled,  both 
from  the  State  and  the  English  hierarchy,  we  dare  not  entangle 
them  again  either  with  the  one  or  the  other.  They  are  now  at 
full  liberty  simply  to  follow  the  Scriptures  and  the  primitive 
Church.  And  we  judge  it  best  that  they  should  stand  fast  in 
that  liberty  wherewith  God  has  so  strangely  made  them  free. 

John  Wesley. 

Thus  was  completed  the  act  which  had  been  con- 
templated by  Wesley  for  years. 

Anglican  writers  here  step  in  and  assert  that 
Wesley  did  not  intend  to  formally  ordain  Dr. 
Coke  ;  that  the  service  at  most  was  but  a  solemn 
form  of  appointment  to  a  special  work  of  a  super- 
visory nature.  Some  Methodist  writers,  both  Eng- 
lish and  American,  have  also  ventured  a  similar 
opinion.  But  to  him  who  has  no  preconceived 
theory  to  sustain,  and  is  desirous  only  of  the  truth 


I/O  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

as  that  may  be  reached  by  patient  study  of  the 
facts,  the  inevitable  question  arises,  If  Mr.  Wesley 
did  not  intend  to  ordain  Dr.  Coke  to  the  episcopal 
office  why  all  this  hesitation,  deliberation,  dis- 
cussion, study  of  Scripture,  and  prolonged  research 
in  Church  history  and  practice  of  primitive  times? 
Simply  to  find  out  whether  a  man  could  be  sent  on 
a  tour  of  inspection  ?  If,  after  all  this  searching  of 
the  Scriptures,  this  study  of  King  and  Stillingfleet, 
these  discussions  in  Conferences,  and  these  letters 
to  his  brother  and  friends,  Wesley  intended  to  ap- 
point Dr.  Coke  only  to  an  office  such  as  a  presiding 
eldership  or  a  secretaryship,  then  truly  the  moun- 
tains were  in  labor  and  a  ridiculous  mouse  was 
born. 

Dr.  Coke  was  already  a  presbyter  and  had  power 
to  administer  the  sacraments  without  any  authority 
from  Wesley.  But  Wesley  ordained  him.  To  what, 
then,  could  he  ordain  if  not  for  the  episcopal  office? 
Why  was  Mr.  Creighton,  a  regular  presbyter  in 
the  English  Church,  invited  to  assist  in  the  cere- 
mony with  other  ordained  elders?  Wesley  gave 
Coke  authority  to  consecrate  Francis  Asbury  to 
the  same  office  with  himself,  and  provided  him 
and  his  successors  for  that  service  with  a  form  of 
ordination  taken  from  the  Ordinal  of  the  Church  of 
England.  But  why  ordain  Asbury  to  this  office  if 
Coke  was  not  ordained  ?  Are  we  to  suppose  that 
Mr.   Wesley  would   send  a  presbyter  to  America 


EPISCOPAL   ORDINATION    OF   DR.    COKE.      17I 

with  letters  of  episcopal  orders  in  his  pocket, 
with  a  form  for  ordaining  others  to  the  same  office, 
and  with  a  commission  to  really  ordain  others,  if  he 
had  not  conferred  authority  upon  that  presbyter  ? 
Let  us  look  a  little  closer.  Dr.  Coke  ordained  Mr. 
Asbury  three  times.  Now,  if  the  setting  apart  of 
Dr.  Coke  was  not  an  ordination  in  the  true  mean- 
ing of  that  term,  how  could  Coke's  ordination  of 
Mr.  Asbury  the  third  time  make  him  a  bishop,  as 
he  was  understood  to  be,  and  so  accepted,  by 
all  the  ministers  present  at  the  Christmas  Confer- 
ence when  they  formed  themselves  into  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  ?  Again,  if  Coke's  ordina- 
tion of  Asbury  the  third  time  did  not  make  him  a 
bishop,  how  could  Coke's  ordination  of  him  the  first 
time,  or  the  second  time,  make  him  a  deacon  or  an 
elder?  If  the  second  ordination  made  him  an 
elder,  what  did  the  third  make  him  ?  He  who  had 
the  power  to  ordain  him  to  one  degree  had  the 
power  to  ordain  him  to  all  three  degrees.  If  he 
could  not  ordain  to  all  three,  then  clearly  he  could 
not  ordain  him  to  any.  If  Asbury,  then,  was  not 
a  bishop  by  virtue  of  his  third  ordination,  then  he 
was  not  an  elder  or  a  deacon  by  virtue  of  his  first 
or  second  ordination.  The  validity  of  all  three 
rests  on  the  fact  that  Dr.  Coke  was  himself  for- 
mally ordained  to  the  episcopal  office. 

That  Mr.  Wesley  deliberately  intended  to  conse- 
crate Dr.  Coke  to  the  office  of  a  bishop — there  is  no 


172  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

need  to  contend  about  names,  since  all  arc  agreed 
that  superintendent,  bishop,  overseer  signify  the 
same  thing — is  demonstrable  from  the  following : 

1.  In  the  letter  of  ordination  given  to  Dr.  Coke 
Mr.  Wesley  recommends  Dr.  Coke  as  a  fit  person 
"  to  preside  over  the  flock  of  Christ."  But  this  is 
the  purpose,  with  all  that  it  implies,  for  which  the 
Church  of  England  ordained  bishops.  And  it  must 
be  borne  in  mind  that  Dr.  Coke  was  to  preside 
over  those  who  still  desired  to  adhere  to  the  *'  doc- 
trine and  discipline  of  the  Church  of  England,"  a 
Church  which  had  become  extinct  in  the  United 
States,  but  the  form  of  government  of  which,  modi- 
fied by  the  practice  and  ideas  of  the  primitive 
Church,  Wesley  desired  they  should  still  maintain. 

2.  At  the  close  of  his  letter  to  Dr.Coke,  Mr.  Asbury, 
etc.,  Wesley  writes,  "  They  are  now  at  full  liberty 
simply  to  follow  the  Scriptures  and  the  primitive 
Church."  The  teaching  of  Scripture,  according  to 
Wesley's  understanding,  was  that  bishops  and  pres- 
byters were  of  the  same  essential  order,  and  that 
therefore  presbyters  had  inherent  right  to  ordain. 
The  practice  of  the  primitive  Church,  as  he  had 
learned  from  Lord  King,  was  a  modified  episcopacy. 
This  the  Methodists  were  to  follow  if  they  chose. 

3.  Wesley  on  these  same  grounds  believed  himself 
to  be,  not  an  English  or  a  Roman  bishop,  but  a  truly 
scriptural  bishop  ;  and  therefore,  so  far  as  the  essence 
of  the  idea  of  episcopacy  was  concerned,  and  not 


EPISCOPAL   ORDINATION    OF   DR.    COKE.      1 73 

the  unessential  accidents  of  the  same,  he  affirmed 
himself  to  be  as  really  a  bishop  as  any  in  England 
or  the  world.  As  such  he  claimed  the  power,  as 
he  asserted  in  a  letter  to  his  brother  Charles,  to 
exercise  the  functions  of  an  tmaKoirog.  Referring 
to  Coke*s  ordination,  he  expressly  declares  in  the 
Conference  Minutes  of  1786:  "Judging  this  to  be  a 
case  of  real  necessity,  I  took  a  step  which,  for  peace 
and  quietness,  I  had  refrained  from  taking  for  many 
years — I  exercised  that  power  which  I  am  fully  per- 
suaded the  great  Shepherd  and  Bishop  of  the  Church 
has  given  me."  But  why  should  he  refrain  to  appoint 
to  a  mere  supervisory  office?  Was  this  all  that  the 
great  Shepherd  and  Bishop  had  given  him  ?  There 
was  no  law  against  that.  He  himself  had  been  act- 
ing as  sole  bishop  from  the  beginning,  and  Asbury 
had  been  for  years  exercising  the  office  of  superin- 
tendent or  general  assistant  with  his  consent. 

4.  That  he  did  intend  to  consecrate  Coke  bishop 
is  further  seen  from  his  conversation  with  Dr.  Coke 
prior  to  the  ordination.  Dr.  Coke  represents  him 
as  saying  that  he  '^  had  much  admired  the  mode  of 
ordaining  bishops  which  the  Church  of  Alexandria 
had  practiced ;  .  .  .  that  the  presbyters  of  that 
venerable  apostoHc  Church,  on  the  death  of  a  bishop, 
exercised  the  right  of  ordaining  another  from  theij- 
own  body  by  the  laying  on  of  their  own  hands  ;  ...  .. 
that,  being  himself  a  presbyter,  he  wished  Dr.  Coke 

to  accept  ordination  from  his  hands  and  to  proceed 
12 


174  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

in  that  character  to  the  continent  of  America  to 
superintend  the  societies  in  the  United  States."  But 
what  possible  connection  can  anyone  see  between 
this  reference  to  the  mode  of  making  bishops  in 
the  Alexandrian  Church  as  a  ground  for  proposed 
action  and  a  mere  appointment  or  assignment  to  a 
temporary  office  ?  Why  should  Dr.  Coke  doubt 
Wesley's  authority  to  appoint  him  to  an  office?  He 
had  assigned  him  to  particular  duties  before,  and 
Dr.  Coke  never  seems  to  have  had  any  doubt  of  his 
authority  to  do  so.  Further,  why  should  it  take 
Dr.  Coke  nearly  two  months  to  be  convinced  that 
Wesley  really  had  the  authority  to  assign  him  to  an 
office  ?  And,  again,  when  it  finally  did  penetrate 
his  intellect  that  Wesley  could  really  appoint  a 
preacher  to  an  office,  why  was  Coke  so  dull  of 
comprehension  that  he  should  write  to  Mr.  Wesley, 
**  The  more  maturely  I  consider  the  subject  the 
more  expedient  it  appears  to  me  that  the  power  of 
ordaining  others  should  be  received  by  me  from  you 
by  the  imposition  of  your  hands  ?"  What  relation 
has  all  this  to  a  mere  appointment  to  an  office? 
And  lastly,  why  should  Mr.  Wesley  take  advantage 
of  this  deplorable  ignorance  and  misapprehension  of 
Thomas  Coke,  Doctor  of  Civil  Law,  to  set  him  apart 
to  a  mere  temporary  office,  when  Dr.  Coke,  on  the 
strength  of  previous  interviews  and  study,  imagined 
all  the  while  that  he  was  being  ordained  bishop  as 
a  bishop  in  the  Alexandrian  Church  was  ordained 


EPISCOPAL    ORDINATION    OF   DR.    COKE.      1/5 

by  the  Alexandrian  presbyters?  Did  Wesley  in- 
tend to  deceive  Coke  ?  Or  was  Coke  so  stupid  that 
he  did  not  understand  Wesley  ?  Or  did  he  wickedly 
distort,  pervert,  and  falsify  Wesley's  words  and 
thus,  impelled  by  unhallowed  ambition,  usurp  epis- 
copal authority  ?  Surely  a  denial  of  the  episcopal 
ordination  of  Dr.  Coke  involves  more  than  we  care 
to  maintain. 

Some  writers  endeavor  to  evade  the  difficulties 
by  suggesting  that  Coke  desired  some  special  au- 
thority but  no  real  episcopal  ordination.  Tyer- 
man,  for  example,  says :  "  Wesley  meant  the  cere- 
mony to  be  a  mere  formality,  likely  to  recommend 
his  delegate  to  the  favor  of  the  Methodists  in  Amer- 
ica." But  this  is  no  explanation  of  the  interview 
between  Coke  and  Wesley  relating  to  the  ordination 
of  bishops  by  presbyters  in  the  Alexandrian  Church. 
And  if  it  is  true  what  Tyerman,  in  the  teeth  of  all 
the  facts,  says  was  all  that  Wesley  meant,  what,  then, 
did  Wesley  further  mean  by  sending  forms  for  or- 
daining superintendents,  elders,  and  deacons  by  this 
same  delegate  ?  Were  such  ordinations,  beginning 
with  Asbury's,  to  be  merely  a  repetition  of  the  same 
formality  for  the  purpose  of  commending  Asbury 
and  other  ministers  to  their  own  people? 

Such  explanations,  it  is  evident,  explain  nothing. 
We  are  hemmed  in  by  the  logic  of  facts.  Either 
Wesley  did  intend  to  consecrate  Coke  to  the  epis- 
copacy and  Coke   did    so   understand   him,  or  w^e 


1/6  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

must  admit  both  the  duplicity  of  Wesley  and  the 
stupidity  of  Coke.  But  Dr.  Coke  was  not  the  only 
stupid  person.  Charles  Wesley,  Asbury,  and  all 
the  American  preachers  suffered  at  the  same  time 
from  the  same  form  of  delusion.  John  Wesley 
not  only  deceived  Coke,  he  deceived  his  brother 
Charles  Wesley,  also  Mr.  Moore,  Dr.  Adam  Clarke, 
Rev.  Richard  Watson,  the  ministry  of  the  Church 
of  England,  and  the  whole  world — and  for  what  ? 

We  may  now  inquire,  Did  Dr.  Coke  purposely 
misconstrue  the  act  of  Wesley  in  setting  him  apart 
to  the  office  of  a  superintendent  or  bishop  ?  What 
are  the  facts  that  will  help  us  in  reaching  the  truth 
in  this  matter?  Let  us  consider  the  following 
grouping  of  facts : 

First.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Coke  arrived  in  the  United 
States  in  due  time  and  communicated  his  mission. 
The  preachers  of  the  Methodist  societies  were  called 
to  meet  in  General  Conference  at  Baltimore.  The 
Conference  opened  December  24.  In  open  session 
the  letter  of  Mr.  Wesley  to  Dr.  Coke,  Mr.  Asbury, 
etc.,  was  read,  and  the  Methodist  societies,  by  the 
unanimous  vote  of  the  preachers  present,  were 
formed  into  one  organization,  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church.  The  Minutes  of  that  Conference 
state  that  this  was  done  in  accordance  with  the 
advice  of  Mr.  Wesley.  Dr.  Coke  was  received  as 
superintendent  or  bishop  by  the  Conference,  that 
body  being  fully  satisfied  respecting  the  validity  of 


EPISCOPAL    ORDINATION    OF    DR.    COKE.      1 7/ 

his  "episcopal  orders."  The  Book  of  Sunday 
Service  was  adopted.  Dr.  Coke  then  ordained 
Francis  Asbury,  first  deacon,  then  elder  or  presby- 
ter, and  then  superintendent  or  bishop,  according 
to  the  forms  of  ordination  which  Wesley  had  given 
him  and  which  had  been  adopted  by  the  General 
Conference  assembled. 

Second.  The  Conference  closed  January  i,  1785. 
The  Minutes  of  the  Conference  were  published  by 
Dr.  Coke,  under  the  title  The  General  Minutes  of 
the  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
On  June  3,  1785,  Dr.  Coke  sailed  for  England, 
and  was  present  with  Mr.  Wesley  at  the  next 
session  of  the  British  Conference  in  London.  The 
General  Minutes  Dr.  Coke  took  with  him  to  En- 
gland and  had  them  reprinted  under  Mr.  Wesley's 
own  eye.  In  those  Minutes  it  was  stated  what 
had  been  done  at  the  Conference  in  Baltimore, 
who  had  been  ordained,  and  the  fact  that  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  had  been  organized  with 
Mr.  Wesley's  consent  and  by  his  provision:  **  Fol- 
lowing the  counsel  of  Mr.  John  Wesley,  who  rec- 
ommended the  episcopal  mode  of  Church  govern- 
ment, we  thought  it  best  to  become  an  episcopal 
Church."  Against  that  declaration  Mr.  Wesley 
uttered  no  protest.  The  Minutes  were  published 
with   his  sanction.*       How,  then,  could   Dr.   Coke 

'  On   this  whole  subject   see  Emory's  Defense  of  Our  Fathers^ 
pp.  73,  74. 


178  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

have  misconstrued,  intentionally  or  otherwise,  the 
act  of  Mr.  Wesley,  when  Wesley  approves  all  that 
Dr.  Coke  had  done  as  the  result  of  that  act  ? 

Third.  Charles  Wesley,  having  heard  what  had 
been  done  in  America,  spoke  of  ''  Dr.  Coke's  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  "  with  alarm  mingled  with 
disdain,  and  referred  with  natural  High  Church 
amazement  to  his  ''  brother's  consecration  of  a 
bishop."  Surely  now,  if  ever,  Mr.  Wesley  will 
speak  out  and  declare  that  his  ordination  of  Dr. 
Coke  was  misinterpreted  ;  that  he  did  not  *'  ordain  " 
him,  but  only  "  set  him  apart ;  "  did  not  commission 
him  by  virtue  of  that  act  to  so  ordain  others;  did 
not  furnish  a  revision  of  the  Anglican  Ordinal  for 
use  in  such  ordinations :  and  did  not  desire  or  in- 
tend the  organization  of  the  Methodists  in  America 
on  the  basis  of  Scripture  and  the  practice  of  the 
primitive  Church.  Mr.  Wesley  did  nothing  of  the 
kind.  His  only  reply  was,  '*  Dr.  Coke  did  nothing 
rashly."  But  how  could  he  have  said  this  if  Dr. 
Coke  had  misinterpreted  his  act,  if  Coke  had  played 
Prometheus  to  W^esley's  fire?  Dr.  Coke  was  himself 
attacked.  His  reply  was  that  he  had  done  nothing 
without  the  authority  of  Mr.  Wesley.  No  one  will 
imagine  that  Wesley  would  have  permitted  the 
American  Minutes  to  have  been  published  without 
some  protest,  or  allowed  the  misapprehension  con- 
cerning the  ordination  of  Dr.  Coke  to  go  without 
correction,  unless  he  had  done  all  that  he  was  sup- 


EPISCOrAL   ORDINATION    OF    DR.    COKE.      1 79 

posed  to  have  done,  namely,  ordain  by  solemn  rite 
the  Rev.  Thomas  Coke  to  the  office  of  a  bishop. 
Such  is  the  testimony  of  the  records. 

This  is  also  the  official  declaration  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church.  In  her  Book  of  Discipline 
the  following  statement  was  published,  first  by 
those  who  organized  the  Church,  in  1789,  and  was 
continued  in  the  same  book  through  all  her  history 
till  recent  editions.  In  the  year  1784  Mr.  Wesley 
sent  over  three  regularly  ordained  clergy  ;  but, 
preferring  the  episcopal  mode  of  Church  govern- 
ment to  any  other,  he  solemnly  set  apart,  by  the 
imposition  of  his  handr>  and  prayer,  one  of  them, 
namely,  Thomas  Coke,  Doctor  of  Civil  Law,  late  of 
Jesus  College,  in  the  University  of  Oxford,  and  a 
presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England,  for  the  episcopal 
office  ;  and,  having  delivered  to  him  letters  of  epis- 
copal orders,  commissioned  and  directed  him  to  set 
apart  Francis  Asbury,  then  general  assistant  of  the 
Methodist  Society  in  America,  for  the  same  episco- 
pal office ;  he,  the  said  Francis  Asbury,  being  first 
ordained  deacon  and  elder.  ...  At  which  time  the 
General  Conference  held  at  Baltimore  did  unani- 
mously receive  the  said  Thomas  Coke  and  Francis 
Asbury  as  their  bishops,  being  fully  satisfied  of  the 
validity  of  their  episcopal  ordination." 

Literature  :  Emory's  Defense  of  Our  Fathers; 
Stevens's  History  of  MetJiodism,  vol.  ii ;  Wesley's 
Works,  vols,  vi,  vii  ;    Sutcliffe's    Short  Memoirs   of 


l8o  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

Thomas  CokCy  LL.D.;  Coke  and  Asbury's  notes 
to  the  Discipline,  1798;  Crowther's  Portraiture  of 
Methodism,  2d  English  ed. ;  Atkinson's  Centennial 
History  of  American  Methodism;  Neely's  Evolution 
of  Episcopacy ;  McTyeire's  History  of  Methodism^ 
vol.  i  ;  Watson's,  Moore's,  Coke  and  Moore's, 
Tyerman's  lives  of  Wesley ;  Coke's  Journals; 
Asbury's  JournaL 


THE    AUTHORITY    OF    WESLEY.  liSl 


CHAPTER   X. 
The  Authority  of  "Wesley^ 

HAVING  clearly  ascertained  by  means  of  histor- 
ical records  the  intention  of  Mr.  Wesley  in  set- 
ting apart  the  Rev.  Dr.  Coke  to  the  episcopal  office, 
the  way  is  now  open  for  us  to  examine  Mr.  Wesley's 
authority  for  that  act. 

Let  this  be  premised.  Methodist  orders  are  not 
based,  nor  are  they  dependent  for  their  validity, 
on  any  supposed  power  of  order  derived  through 
uninterrupted  episcopal  succession.  Such  succes- 
sion was  denied  and  repudiated  by  the  founders  of 
Episcopal  Methodism,  as  it  was  by  the  founders  of  the 
Church  of  England.  And  it  must  now  be  conceded, 
if  historical  facts  determine  anything,  that  it  is  im- 
possible to  establish  the  theory  of  an  unbroken 
series  of  prelatical  bishops  by  divine  right  in  the 
Christian  Church  from  the  days  of  the  apostles.  In 
support  of  this  statement  there  is  no  need  to  imitate 
the  uncritical  and  unsatisfactory  arguments  of  those 
who  place  undue  emphasis  on  the  difficulty  of  as- 
certaining who  were  the  immediate  successors  of  the 
apostles  in  the  Western  Church.  For,  Avhile  it  may 
be  shown  that  there  is  no  unanimity  of  opinion  in 
this   matter  among  the  earliest  writers — Irenaeus, 


1 82  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

Tertullian,  Euscbius,  Origen,  Epiphanius,  Damasus, 
Jerome,  Rufinus,  all  differing  among  themselves  in 
greater  or  less  degree — the  fact  nevertheless  remains 
that  some  one  did  succeed  them  in  caring  for 
the  flock  of  Christ.  Whether  he  was  a  bishop  in 
the  modern  sense,  rather  than  a  pastor  of  a  con- 
gregation or  a  president  of  a  body  of  pastors,  is 
wholly  another  question.     He  certainly  was  not. 

On  modern  Anglican  principles  the  validity  of 
Anglican  orders  depends  on  the  validity  and  un- 
broken continuity  of  the  succession  in  the  Roman 
Church.  There  is,  however,  no  record  of  bishops  in 
the  Churches  of  Britain  for  five  hundred  and  ninety- 
six  years,  until  the  reestablishment  of  Christianity 
there  by  Augustine.  In  order  to  avoid  Rome,  an 
attempt  is  made  to  derive  succession  from  Ephesus 
by  making  it  appear  that  the  Bishop  of  Aries,  who 
consecrated  Augustine,  had  been  consecrated  him- 
self by  a  successor  of  those  who  succeeded  the  bishops 
appointed  by  the  apostle  John.  But  Aries  was  in  the 
jurisdiction  of  Rome  as  far  back  as  the  days  of  Ire- 
naeus.  Augustine  was  sent  by  Rome,  and  through 
Rome  he  received  episcopal  authority.*  The  Ephe- 
sian  succession  is  a  myth  invented  by  the  necessities 
of  the  historic  episcopate  theory.  To  Rome  at  last 
Anglicans  must  trace  their  lineage.  The  historical 
fact  is  that  up  to  the  time  of  the  Reformation  out 
of  sixty-eight  archbishops  of  Canterbury  several  were 

'  See  Alzog's  Universal  Church  History,  English  translation. 


THE   AUTHORITY    OF   WESLEY.  iC^T, 

consecrated  by  Roman  popes.  Chicheley,  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  was  consecrated  by  John 
XXIII.  This  pope  had  been  for  some  time  a  con- 
testant for  the  papal  throne,  was  deposed  after  great 
scandal,  and  all  his  acts  declared  null  and  void.  But 
Chicheley,  whom  he  had  consecrated  to  the  see  of 
Canterbury,  continued  to  confer  orders,  making 
bishops  and  presbyters  for  thirty  years  in  the  English 
Church.  Other  instances  will  occur  to  the  student 
of  ecclesiastical  history. 

But  what  evidence  is  there  that  Rome  is  in  pos- 
session of  a  valid  succession  ?  Whatever  Anglican 
writers  may  do,  Roman  theologians  are  too  skillful, 
as,  for  instance,  Cardinal  Newman,  to  risk  the  au- 
thority of  their  ministry  on  mere  chronological 
tables.  Lists  of  popes  and  bishops  displayed  with 
all  the  ingenuity  of  the  printer's  art  may  impose 
upon  the  uninformed,  but  they  can  have  no  influ- 
ence on  the  judgment  of  those  who  have  even  but 
a  slight  knowledge  of  the  turmoils  and  agitations 
and  fierce  conflicts  surging  for  centuries  around  the 
throne  of  Peter.  The  truth  is,  neither  the  Eastern  nor 
the  Western  Church  rely  upon  such  evidences,  for 
it  is  well  known  that,  even  if  there  were  no  breaks  in 
the  chronological  series,  the  validity  of  the  episcopal 
ordinations  recorded  would  thereby  be  in  no  wise 
guaranteed.  Serial  succession  is  by  no  means  a 
synonym  for  valid  or  apostolical  succession.  Lay- 
men have  been  made  bishops  without  ordination  to 


1 84  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

lower  grades.  Euclierius  was  only  a  layman  when 
made  Bishop  of  Lyons;  Philogonius  of  Antioch  was 
transferred  from  a  judgeship  to  the  episcopacy; 
Cyprian  was  but  a  neophyte  when  made  Bishop  of 
Carthage  ;  so  also  Ambrose  of  Milan,  and  Nectarius 
of  Constantinople.  In  784  Tarasius  was  conse- 
crated to  the  see  of  Constantinople,  though  but  a  lay- 
man, and  he  ordained  bishops  and  presbyters.  Pope 
John  XIX  in  1024,  while  a  layman,  was  elected  pope, 
and  he  ordained  bishops  and  archbishops.  The 
Duke  of  Savoy,  a  layman,  was  made  pope  (or  anti- 
pope)  in  1439,  ^"<^  consecrated  many  to  the  epis- 
copal office.  Augustine  was  ordained  Bishop  of 
Hippo  while  the  bishop  of  that  see  was  living  and 
had  not  resigned.  Photius  of  Constantinople  was 
deposed  and  his  acts  made  of  none  effect,  although 
he  had  in  the  space  of  nine  years  ordained  many 
bishops.  Bishop  Vigilius  was  put  by  the  renowned 
Belisarius  in  the  see  of  Rome,  in  the  place  of  Bishop 
Silverius,  while  Silverius  was  yet  living,  where- 
by the  validity  of  the  ordination  of  eighty-one 
bishops  and  forty-six  presbyters  whom  Silverius  or- 
dained was  destroyed,  for  the  reason  that  there 
could  not  be  two  bishops  in  one  see.  Similar  record 
might  be  madeof  Eugenius  IV;  of  the  antipope  Gui- 
bert,  and  of  the  four  antipopes  between  A.  D. 
1159  and  1182.  Pope  John  VIII  degraded  For- 
mosus  from  his  bishopric  and  reduced  him  to  the 
condition    of  a   layman.     Formosus  afterward   at- 


THE    AUTHORITY    OF   WESLEY.  1 85 

talned  to  the  papal  chair  and  ordained  Phlegmund 
to  the  archiepiscopal  see  of  Canterbury,  who,  for 
the  thirty-two  years  he  held  that  see,  ordained  many 
bishops  for  the  English  Church.  But  Formosus 
was  deposed  and  condemned  after  his  death  by 
Pope  Stephen  VII,  and  also  by  Pope  Sergius,  and 
all  his  acts  made  null  and  void. 

The  history  of  the  numerous  schisms  in  the 
Church  of  Rome,  some  twenty-six  in  number,  is 
familiar  to  the  student  of  history.  To  suppose  that 
for  an  absolute  certainty  there  were  no  breaks  in 
the  even  flow  of  episcopal  authority  during  these 
conflicts  may  be  reckless,  but  such  supposition 
would  not  be  regarded  as  either  wise  or  strong.  We 
have  but  to  think  of  those  fierce  commotions,  in 
which  all  wrongs,  crimes,  disreputable  deeds,  and 
uncanonical  acts  were  possible  to  both  parties,  to 
comprehend  how  difficult  it  must  be  to  maintain  any- 
thing approaching  to  certainty  in  the  matter  of  valid 
succession.  Witness  the  struggle  for  the  supremacy 
between  Cornelius  and  Novatian  in  A.  D.  251  ;  Li- 
berius  and  Felix  in  355  ;  Damasus  and  Ursicinus, 
settled  in  381  ;  Boniface  I  and  Eulalius  in  418  ; 
Symmachus  and  Laurentius  in  498  ;  Boniface  II 
and  Dioscorus  in  530;  Silverius  and  Vigilius  ;  Bene- 
dict VIII  and  his  rival,  Gregory;  the  tumults  and 
schisms  incident  to  the  struggle  for  the  papacy 
which  disgraced  the  pontificates  of  John  XVIII, 
Benedict   IX,   Gregory   VI,   and    Clement    II  ;    the 


1 86  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

recriminations  of  the  rival  popes  during  the  Great 
Schism  of  seventy  years  ;  the  scandals  occasioned 
by  the  rivalries  of  Benedict  XIII,  of  Spain,  Gregory 
XII,  of  France,  and  John  XXIII,  of  Italy,  each 
claiming  to  be  the  lawful  successor  of  St.  Peter,  and 
each  ordaining  bishops  and  other  clergy.  The  Re- 
formers repudiated  the  succession  for  the  English 
Church  ;  and,  witii  all  history  to  appeal  to,  Wesley 
might  well  say,  *'  Uninterrupted  succession  I  know 
to  be  a  fable  which  no  man  ever  did  or  can  pro\'e." 

Methodist  orders,  then,  are  in  no  sense  founded 
on  the  mythical  theory  of  tactual  succession.  Upon 
what,  then,  did  Mr.  Wesley  base  his  authority?  Mr. 
Wesley  appealed  for  his  authority  in  ordaining  Dr. 
Coke  to  Holy  Scripture,  to  the  practice  of  the 
primitive  Church,  to  the  call  of  the  Church,  and  to 
the  necessity  of  the  circumstances.  Let  us  con- 
sider in  particular  some  of  these  grounds: 

First,  the  appeal  to  Scripture.  Mr.  Wesley  was  a 
presbyter,  and  therefore,  according  to  the  New 
Testament,  possessed  the  inherent  right  to  ordain. 
In  the  New  Testament  we  find  two  classes  of  men 
set  apart  by  apostolic  authority  to  the  work  of  the 
ministry.  The  one  class  is  named  dtdnovoc,  deacons, 
ministers,  the  other  tnLOKOTroL,  overseers,  bishops,  su- 
perintendents (Acts  XX, 28)  ;  ol  7Tpo'iardfj,evoi,  presidents 
(Rom.  xii,  8  ;  i  Thess.  v,  12)  ;  ol  7)yovi-ievot,  leaders, 
governors  (Heb.  xiii,  7,  17,  24);  ol  rrgEofivTepoL, 
presbyters,  elders,  seniors  (Acts  xx,  17).  These  titles. 


THE   AUTHORITY    OF   WESLEY.  1 8/ 

with  the  exception  of  dcaKovoL,  all  indicate  one  and 
the  same  order  or  office,  that  of  bishop  or  elder. 
The  exact  truth  is,  there  is  but  one  order,  the  minis- 
terial order,  as  distinguished  from  the  laity.  All 
distinctive  names,  as  deacon,  elder,  bishop,  are  but 
different  offices  in  that  one  ministerial  order.  The 
terms  "  bishop,"  "  presbyter,"  "  elder,"  **  overseer," 
met  with  in  the  New  Testament,  are  all  interchange- 
able, and  do  not  indicate  two  orders,  one  superior  to 
the  other  and  different  in  nature,but  one  and  the  same 
order.  This  will  be  clear  by  comparing  Acts  xx,  17, 
with  verse  28.  The  apostle  Paul  called  the  presby- 
ters, elders,  npE(Tf3vTepoi,  of  the  Church  of  Ephesus 
to  meet  him  at  Miletus.  When  they  came  he  ex- 
horted them,  saying,  **  Take  heed  to  yourselves  and 
to  all  the  flock  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath 
made  you  bishops,  overseers,  tmWoTrof,  to  feed  the 
Church  of  God  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his 
own  blood."  Here  those  who  were  called  presby- 
ters in  one  verse  are  designated  as  bishops  in 
another.  In  the  Epistle  to  Titus  the  apostle 
writes  :  **  For  this  cause  I  left  thee  in  Crete,  that 
thou  shouldest  set  in  order  the  things  that  are  want- 
ing, and  ordain  presbyters  in  every  city,  as  I  had  ap- 
pointed thee."  And,  having  stated  the  requisite 
qualifications  of  presbyters,  he  gives  reasons  for 
care,  because  he  says,  "  A  bishop  must  be  blame- 
less." In  I  Tim.  iii,  i-io,  the  apostle  recognizes  only 
two  offices  in  the  Church,  the  episcopate  and  the 


1 88  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

diaconatc,  for  the  reason  that  bishop  and  presbyter 
were  of  the  one  and  the  same  order.  This  is  seen 
also  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  where  bishops 
and  deacons  are  mentioned  together.  We  never 
find  bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons  in  the  New 
Testament.  In  i  Peter  v,  1-3,  the  apostle  exhorts 
the  presbyters  to  shepherd  the  flock  of  God,  exer- 
cising the  episcopal  office  {tmaKorrovvreg)  over  them. 
The  term  *'  bishop  "  belongs  to  the  Gentile  Chris- 
tian element,  while  its  New  Testament  synonym 
"  elder "  is  almost  always  used  by  the  Hebrew 
Christians.  '*  It  is  worth  noting,"  says  Bannerman,* 
''  that  when  these  epistles — that  to  the  Philippians 
and  the  pastoral  epistles — came  to  be  translated 
into  Aramaic  for  Hebrew  Christians,  who  still  used, 
at  least  by  preference,  their  ancient  speech,  the 
term  tnloKonog  was  invariably  rendered  by  Z'^- 
sJiisho  or  '  elder,'  and  t-nioKoixj],  *  a  bishop's  office,' 
kashishkuts  or  '  eldership.'  " 

The  qualifications  for  a  bishop  and  a  presbyter 
are  the  same.  Compare  I  Tim.  iii,  2-7,  and  Titus 
i,  6-9.  Their  duties  and  their  authority  are  the 
same.  Compare  Heb.  xiii,  7,  17,  I  Thess.  v,  12,  i  Tim. 
v,  17,  Acts  XX,  28,  and  i  Peter  v,  1-3.  Indeed,  it 
is  now  conceded  by  nearly  all  parties  that  in  the 
New  Testament  there  is  no  difference  between  a 
bishop  and  a  presbyter.  Presbyters,  therefore,  had 
the    inherent    right    to    ordain ;   they   did    all    that 

1  Scrip ttn-e  Doctrine  of  the  Church,  p.  409. 


THE   AUTHORITY    OF   WESLEY.  1 89 

is  now  done  by  bishops,  and  this  is  acknowledged 
by  competent  scholars,  even  among  those  who  con- 
tend for  the  divine  right  of  episcopacy :  ''In  the 
earliest  times,  when  no  formal  distinction  between 
enloKoiTot,  bishops,  and  Trpeo0vrepoi,  presbyters,  had 
taken  place,  the  presbyters,  especially  the  npoearoJTe^^ 
presiding  bishops  (i  Tim.  v,  17),  discharged  those 
episcopal  functions  which  afterward,  when  a  careful 
distinction  of  ecclesiastical  officers  had  been  made, 
they  were  not  permitted  to  discharge  otherwise 
than  as  substitutes  or  vicars  of  a  bishop."  ' 

The  earliest  Christian  writers,  like  the  New 
Testament,  know  no  distinction  in  order,  power,  or 
authority  between  bishops  and  presbyters.  Clement 
of  Rome,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  mention^s 
presbyters  and  deacons,  but  does  not  know  any 
other  office.  Polycarp  exhorts  the  Philippians  to 
obey  the  presbyters  and  deacons,  but  makes  no 
reference  to  a  bishop,  which  in  the  nature  of  the 
circumstances  he  must  have  made  had  the  episco- 
pal office  been  distinct  from  the  eldership.  Justin 
Martyr  mentions  only  two  orders,  of  which  episco- 
pacy is  not  one.  Irenseus,  writing  against  Gnostic 
heretics,  is  also  in  evidence  that  even  at  that  date 
bishops  and  presbyters  were  the  same  as  to  order: 
"  When  we  summon  them  [the  heretics]  to  that 
tradition  which   is   from  the  apostles,  and  which  is 

*  Riddle's  Christian  Antiquities,   p.   233.     See  also  Hatch's  Or- 
ganization   of  Early    Christian    Churches^    and    Lightfoot  qji    the 
Epistle  to  the  Philippians. 
13 


190 


THE    HISTORIC    EnSCOPATE. 


guarded  in  the  Churches  by  the  succession  of  the 
presbyters,  they  oppose  tradition."  '  '*  Wherefore 
we  ought  to  obey  the  presbyters  who  are  in  the 
Church,  who  have  the  succession  from  the  apostles, 
as  we  have  shown,  who,  with  the  succession  of  the 
episcopate — qiii  cum  episcopatiis  succcssione — have 
received  the  same  gift  of  truth  according  to  the 
Father's  good  pleasure."  * 

Such  was  the  general  idea  of  the  Church  imme- 
diately after  the  apostles.  For  wise  reasons  a 
change  gradually  took  place,  probably  first  at 
Rome,  one  of  the  presbyters  being  selected  by  the 
others  to  preside  over  the  Church  and  direct  its 
affairs.  He  thus  was  chosen  the  presbyter,  the 
k-niGKo-noq^  the  bishop.  To  him  were  delegated 
certain  powers  held  by  all  presbyters,  and  by  him 
they  were  employed  only  with  the  consent  of  all. 
When  he  died  another  succeeded  in  his  place. 
This  was  succession — lineal  succession  of  place, 
not  of  authority  derived  from  other  bishops,  but 
from  the  Church  which  had  already  made  him 
bishop  in  the  place  of  the  departed.  Neighboring 
bishops  were  called  in  to  sanction,  confirm,  or  recog- 
nize the  new  chief  pastor.  In  time  these  bishops 
were  considered  as  necessary  to  the  conveyance  of 
certain  gifts,  powers,  and  authority,  and  thus  grad- 
ually, by  custom  of  the  Church,  bishops  became  a 
distinct  order  from  the  presbyters. 

^  Adversus  Hczreses,  lib.  iii,  c.  2.  ^  Ibid.,  lib,  iv,  c.  43. 


THE   AUTHORITY    OF   WESLEY.  I9I 

The  venerable  presbyter  John  Wesley,  going  be- 
hind ecclesiastical  canons  and  customs,  went  back 
to  the  New  Testament  and  claimed  the  divine  right 
to  exercise  the  power  of  a  presbyter,  or  scriptural 
bishop,  which  as  such  belonged  to  him  by  the 
divine  authority  of  the  New  Testament.  This 
authority  none  can  dispute  ;  higher  authority  none 
can  give. 

Sccondy  the  appeal  to  the  practice  of  the  primitive 
CJmrch.  But  Wesley  did  not  rely  solely  upon  pri- 
vate interpretation  of  Scripture.  The  practice  and 
teaching  of  the  apostles  must  have  been  continued 
for  some  little  time,  at  least,  in  the  Churches  which 
they  had  founded.  To  that  primitive  period  of  the 
Church  Wesley  directed  his  attention,  and  there 
found,  as  others  had  before,  those  same  practices  in 
operation  which  were  usual  in  the  days  of  the 
apostles.  History  and  Scripture  interpreted  each 
other,  both  establishing  the  fact  that  presbyters 
had  inherent  right  to  ordain.  This  also  may  now 
be  regarded  as  conceded.  Professor  Gore,  of  Ox- 
ford, however,  ably  defends  a  contrary  view.  But, 
with  all  respect  to  his  eminent  abilities,  the  evi- 
dence is  immovably  against  him.  Jerome,  than 
whom  no  one  was  better  versed  in  the  traditions 
and  customs  of  the  early  Church,  distinctly  teaches 
as  historic  fact  that  through  many  episcopates  in 
the  Alexandrian  Church  "  the  presbyters  always 
called  one  elected  by  themselves,  and  placed   in  a 


192  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

higher  rank,  bishop,  just  as  an  army  may  constitute 
its  general,  or  deacons  may  elect  one  of  them- 
selves, whom  they  know  to  be  diligent,  and  call  him 
archdeacon."^  The  purpose  of  Jerome  is  to  show 
that  in  the  first  period  of  the  Church  the  presbyters 
had  the  power  of  appointing  a  presiding  presbyter, 
who  thereby  became  the  bishop  over  all  his  college 
of  presbyters.  Lightfoot '  quotes  a  decree  of  the 
Council  of  Ancyra — A.  D.  314 — which  strongly  sup- 
ports this  view.  According  to  this  ancient  de- 
cision neither  the  ;\;w|oeTrt(7K07roi — country  bishops — 
nor  city  presbyters  were  to  be  permitted  to  ordain 
without  permission  in  writing  of  the  bishop  of  the 
parish.  Without  question,  if  it  had  not  been  the 
custom  for  presbyters  to  ordain  this  decree  would 
never  have  been  made,  for  laws  are  not  enacted 
against  nonentities,  but  against  existing  evils,  pos- 
sible evils,  or  for  the  limitation  of  existing  rights. 
And  it  will  be  observed  that  the  prohibition  is  not 
against  presbyters  ordaining,  but  against  their  or- 
daining without  permission. 

Further  testimony  that  presbyters  did  ordain  is 
given  by  Eutychius,  a  patriarch  of  Alexandria. 
His  testimony  has  been  the  subject  of  much  con- 
troversy because  of  its  great  and  conclusive  impor- 
tance, but  all  attempts  to  explain  it  away  or  to 
minimize  its  value  or  to  weaken  its  credibility  have 
proved  utterly  futile.      Having  stated  that  the  evan- 

'  Epistle  to  Evagrius.  "^  Commentary  on  Philippians. 


THE    AUTHORITY    OF    WESLEY.  1 93 

gelist  Mark  preached  in  Alexandria  and  founded  the 

Church  there,  appointing  one   Hananias  as  its  first 

patriarch,  Eutychius  continues  :  ' 

Moreover,  he  appointed  twelve  presbyters  with  Hananias, 
who  were  to  remain  with  the  patriarch,  so  that  when  the  pa- 
triarchate was  vacant  they  might  elect  one  of  the  twelve  pres- 
byters, upon  whose  head  the  other  eleven  might  place  their 
hands  and  bless  him  and  create  him  patriarch,  and  then 
choose  some  excellent  man  and  appoint  him  presbyter  with 
themselves  m  the  place  of  him  who  was  thus  made  patriarch, 
that  thus  there  might  always  be  twelve.  Nor  did  this  custom 
respecting  the  presbyters,  namely,  that  they  should  create  their 
patriarchs  from  the  twelve  presbyters,  cease  at  Alexandria  until 
the  times  of  Alexander,  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  who  was  of  the 
number  of  the  three  hundred  and  eighteen  [the  bishops  of  the 
Nicene  Council].  But  he  forbade  the  presbyters  to  create  the 
patriarch  for  the  future,  and  decreed  that  when  the  patriarch  was 
dead  the  bishops  should  meet  and  ordain  the  patriarch  ;  more- 
over, that  on  a  vacancy  of  the  patriarchate  they  should  elect, 
either  from  any  country,  or  from  the  twelve  presbyters,  or  others, 
as  circumstances  might  prescribe,  some  excellent  man  and  create 
him  patriarch.  And  thus  that  ancient  custom  by  which  the 
patriarch  used  to  be  created  by  the  presbyters  disappeared,  and 
in  its  place  succeeded  the  ordinance  for  the  creation  of  the 
patriarch  by  the  bishops. 

Eutychius  is  not  alone  in  this  testimony.  Hilary 
the  Deacon,  supposed  author  of  certain  commen- 
taries on  the  Pauline  epistles,  notes: 

Moreover,  in  Egypt  the  presbyters  confirm  if  a  bishop  is  not 
present.  But  because  the  presbyters  that  followed  began  to  be 
found  unworthy  to  hold  the  primacy  {primatus)  the  custom 
was  altered,  a  council  providing  that  not  order,  but  merit,  ought 
to  make  a  bishop,  and  that  he  should  be  appointed  by  the  judg- 
ment of  many  priests. 

'  Origines  Ecclesice  Alexa^idrince.  Translated  by  Selden,  and 
quoted  by  Goode,  Rule  oj  Faith,  vol.  ii,  p.  255. 


194  I'tlE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

Augustine,  having  stated  that  a  bisliop  is  but  a 
first  presbyter,  says : 

And  it  is  base  to  call  a  pronotary,  or  archdeacon,  a  judge,  for 
in  Alexandria  and  tiirough  the  whole  of  Egypt  the  presbyter 
consecrates  if  the  bishop  is  absent.' 

The  evidence  now  before  us,  together  with  the 
testimony  of  early  Christian  writers  respecting  the 
parity  of  bishops  and  presbyters — such  testimony, 
in  addition  to  that  already  given  throughout  these 
pages,  as  may  be  adduced  from  the  works  of  Ter- 
tullian,'  Clement  of  Alexandria,^  Eusebius,'  Cyp- 
rian, Firmilian,^  Hilary  the  Deacon,^  Chrysostom,' 
Theodoret,^  and  many  others — must,  in  the  mind  of 
any  fair-minded  inquirer  after  historic  truth,  cer- 
tainly vindicate  the  appeal  of  Wesley  to  the  prac- 
tice of  the  primitive  Church. 

Third,  the  necessity  of  the  case.  In  further  de- 
fense of  his  action  Mr.  Wesley,  in  his  letter  to  "Dr. 
Coke,  Mr.  Asbury,  and  our  Brethren  in  North 
America,"  referred  to  the  religious  destitution  of  the 
thousands  in  Ainerica  who  looked  to  him  in  the 
providence  of  God  as  their  spiritual  guide  and  chief. 
Serious  consideration  of  the  deplorable  condition 
of  these  thousands  and  the  futility  of  appealing 
further  to  Anglican  bishops  left  him,  as  the  provi- 
dential leader  of  the  great  Methodist  movement,  no 

'  Quastiones,  191.  '^  Apologeticus^  c.  39  ;  De  Corona,  c.  3. 

3  Stromata,  lib.  vi,  c.  7.         '*  Lib.  ill,  c.  22.      *  Epistle  to  Cyprian. 
*  Com.  ad  Ephesios.  "^  Expo  sit.  I  Epis.  ad  Tim.,  Horn.  xi. 

^Interpret.  Epis.  ad  Phil.,  also  Interpret.  Epis.  ad  Timothetim. 


THE   AUTHORITY    OF   WESLEY.  1 95 

alternative;  the  necessity  of  the  case  compelled  him 
to  accept  the  responsibility  which  providence  had 
placed  upon  liim.  If  some  objector  of  philosophical 
turn  should  observe  that  the  providence  was  of 
Wesley's  own  making,  in  that  this  act  of  ordi- 
nation was  the  logical  outcome  of  Wesley's  labors 
for  many  years,  and  was  not  therefore  necessarily  a 
direct  providence  of  God,  we  may  observe,  in  turn, 
that  even  if  it  be  granted  that  that  is  true,  still  the 
Lord  himself  was  a  helper  of  Wesley  in  making  this 
providential  crisis  through  all  those  years,  and  it  was 
therefore  as  truly  from  God  when  it  did  come  as  if 
Wesley's  labors  had  not  produced  it.  Wesley  knew 
the  hour  had  come  in  a  most  extraordinary  manner, 
by  means  of  the  liberation  of  the  American  colonies, 
and  he  dared  not  shrink  from  his  manifest  duty. 
"  Here,  therefore,"  he  writes,  "  my  scruples  are  at 
an  end,  and  I  conceive  myself  at  full  liberty,  as  I 
violate  no  order  and  invade  no  man's  right  by 
appointing  and  sending  laborers  Into  the  harvest." 

This  appeal  to  necessity  is  universally  recognized 
as  valid.  It  certainly  must  be  by  the  Church  of 
England  and  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 
Bishop  Burnet,  commenting  on  Article  XXIII  of 
the  English  Articles  of  Religion,  states  and  explains 
the  principle: 

I'inally,  if  a  company  of  Christians  find  the  public  worship  of 
God  where  they  live  to  be  so  defiled  that  they  cannot  with  a 
good  conscience  join   in  it,  and  if  they  do  not  know  of  any 


196  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

place  to  which  they  can  conveniently  go  where  they  mny  wor- 
ship God  purely  and  in  a  regular  way — if,  1  say,  such  a  body, 
finding  some  that  have  been  ordained,  though  to  the  lower  func- 
tions, should  submit  itself  entirely  to  their  conduct,  or,  finding 
none  of  those,  should  by  a  common  consent  desire  some  of  their 
own  number  to  minister  to  them  in  holy  things,  and  should  upon 
that  beginning  grow  up  to  a  regulated  constitution,  though  we 
are  very  sure  that  this  is  quite  out  of  all  rule,  and  could  not  be 
done  without  a  very  great  sin,  unless  the  necessity  were  great 
and  apparent,  yet  if  the  necessity  is  teal  and  not  feigned,  this  is 
not  condemned  or  annulled  by  the  Article  ,  for  when  this  grows 
to  a  constitution,  and  when  it  was  iiegun  by  the  consent  of  a 
body  who  are  supposed  to  have  an  authority  in  such  an  extraor- 
dinary  case,  whatever  some  hotter  spirits  have  thought  of  this 
since  that  time,  yet  we  are  very  sure  that  not  only  those  who 
penned  the  Articles,  but  the  body  of  this  Church  for  above  half 
an  age  after,  did,  notwithstanding  these  irregularities,  acknowl- 
edge the  foreign  Churches  so  constituted  to  be  true  Churches 
as  to  all  the  essentials  of  a  Church. 

The  Church  of  England  itself  was  born  of  necessity. 
The  irregularities  in  the  organization  of  the  foreign 
Churches  which  Anglicanism  now  affects  to  deplore 
were  as  notorious  in  the  founding  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  of  England  as  in  any  of  the  Reformed 
Churches  of  Europe.  Matthew  Parker  was  said  to 
have  been  elected  archbishop  by  the  chapter  of 
Canterbury  as  the  canons  direct.  Passing  over 
the  fact  that  such  election  was  illegal,  since,  ac- 
cording to  a  law  of  Edward  VI  (i  Edward,  VI, 
c.  2),  which  law  was  not  repealed  at  the  time 
Parker  is  said  to  have  been  elected,  the  election 
itself  could  hardly  be  considered  free.  The  chapter 
numbered    twelve   prebendaries.      There   was    one 


THE   AUTHORITY    OF    WESLEY.  1 97 

vacancy,  and  out  of  the  remaining  eleven  only  four 
were  present,  and  the  vote  was  left  to  the  dean. 
Again,  since  the  consecrators  of  Parker,  such  as 
Barlow,  Hodgkins,  and  Scory,  were  bishops  of  no 
place,  and  had  no  jurisdiction  over  any  place  until 
they  were  confirmed  by  Parker,  whom  they  first 
consecrated,  how  could  they  confer  jurisdiction  on 
Matthew  Parker  ?  Here  is  the  second  important, 
and  as  unfortunate  as  it  is  important,  irregularity 
at  the  very  beginning  of  the  Anglican  hierarchy. 

We  are  well  apprised  of  the  defense  made  in  this 
behalf,  especially  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Bailey,  which  is 
summed  up  in  a  note  to  Dr.  Pusey's  Eiraticon.  The 
gist  of  that  note  is  that  "  the  metropolitical  see  in 
each  country  has  inherent  jurisdiction  according  to 
the  ancient  canons.  Parker  was  left  in  undisputed 
succession  of  the  see  of  Canterbury,  and  his  succes- 
sors have  the  jurisdiction  inherent  in  that  see." 
Without  placing  much  emphasis  on  the  fiction  of 
jurisdiction  residing  in  an  impersonal,  impalpable, 
supposed  entity,  we  may  affirm  our  acquiescence  in 
the  correctness  of  the  principle  quoted.  But  the 
principle  is  one  thing,  the  application  of  it  is  quite 
another.  By  what  right  does  Dr.  Pusey  or  any  other 
Anglican  apply  that  principle  to  the  Protestant 
Church  of  England?  The  principle  cannot  apply, 
for  there  was  a  complete  change  of  religion,  of 
Church,  of  ministry,  and  it  is  sheer  nonsense  to  go 
on  talking  about  principles  of  the  early  Church  as 


1 98  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

if  they  had  any  relation  to  the  Church  of  the  Refor- 
mation. Then,  while  the  succession  in  the  see  of 
Canterbury  was  not  disputed,  it  is  well  known  that 
dispute  of  it  was  of  no  avail.  The  religious  revolu- 
tion swept  away  the  past  and  all  things  became 
new.  But  if  the  Reformers  at  the  beginning  of  the 
English  Church  had  the  right,  as  they  certainly  had, 
to  assume  jurisdiction  in  England  by  the  aid  of  force 
granted  by  the  civil  power  and  by  driving  out  the 
Roman  bishops  from  their  sees,  by  what  right  can 
Anglicans  assume  that  the  thousands  of  Methodists 
in  North  America  had  no  inherent  right  to  self- 
government,  no  jurisdiction  over  the  things  spiritual 
among  themselves?  If  a  small  minority  of  English- 
men had  the  right  to  repudiate  the  Roman  Church 
and  to  assume  control  of  their  own  religious  matters, 
by  what  law  is  the  same  right  denied  to  fifteen  thou- 
sand Christians  in  America  to  govern  themselves,  fol- 
lowing the  Scripture  and  the  primitive  Church,  when 
they  are  left  without  any  Church  to  care  for  them  or 
to  provide  in  any  w^iy  for  their  future  needs  ?  What- 
ever defense  is  made  for  the  assumption  of  jurisdic- 
tion by  the  first  bishops  of  the  English  Church,  that 
same  defense  holds  good  in  every  particular  for  the 
Rev.  John  Wesley,  who  expressly  declared  (and  he  is 
sustained  by  the  facts  of  history)  that  he  violated  no 
order  nor  invaded  any  man's  right  in  sending  labor- 
ers into  the  New  World  on  the  collapse  of  the 
English  Church  and  the  extinction  of  all  spiritual 


THE    AUTHORITY    OF    WESLEV.  1 99 

jurisdiction  by  that  Church  in  the  American  col- 
onies. 

Further,  that  the  AngHcan  episcopacy  rests  on 
the  doctrine  of  necessity  is  clearly  seen  in  the  ex- 
traordinary wording  of  the  famous  Supplying  Clause, 
which  definitely  supplies  by  royal  authority  alone 
any  defect  in  the  powers  of  Parker's  consecrators 
— anything  in  condition,  state,  or  power  **  which, 
either  by  the  statutes  of  this  realm  or  by  the  eccle- 
siastical laws,  are  required  or  are  necessary  on  this 
behalf,  the  state  of  the  times  and  the  exigency  of 
affairs  rendering  it  necessary."  Necessity,  then,  is 
the  avowed  basis  of  the  English  episcopacy.  But 
that  was  the  precise  plea  of  Wesley  in  justification 
of  his  ordaining  ministers  for  the  thousands  in 
America.  What  defense,  then,  can  be  sustained  in 
behalf  of  the  Anglican  episcopacy  that  is  not  his- 
torically and  morally  valid  in  defense  of  Methodist 
episcopacy? 

Hooker,  whose  fame  in  the  ecclesiastical  annals 
of  England  is  yet  undimmed  by  the  mists  of  time, 
laid  down  the  principle  of  necessity  in  his  celebrated 
work  on  Church  polity*  thus: 

As  the  ordinary  course  is  ordinarily  in  all  things  to  be  ob- 
served, so  it  may  be,  in  some  cases,  not  unnecessary  that  we  de- 
cline from  the  ordinary  ways.  Men  may  be  extraordinarily,  yet 
allowably,  two  ways  admitted  into  spiritual  functions  in  the 
Church.  One  is  when  God  himself  doth  raise  up  any  whose 
labor  he  useth,  without  requiring  that  men   should  authorize 

'  Book  vii,  chap.  xiv. 


200  TFIE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

them  ;  but  then  he  doth  ratify  their  calling  by  manifest  signs  and 
tokens  himself  from  heaven.  .  .  .  Another  extraordinary  kind 
of  vocation  is  when  the  exigency  of  necessity  dolh  constrain  to 
leave  the  usual  ways  of  the  Church,  ,  .  .  when  the  Church 
must  needs  have  some  ordained,  and  neither  hath  nor  can  have 
possibly  a  bishop  to  ordain  ;  in  case  of  such  necessity  the  ordi- 
nary institution  of  God  hath  given  oftentimes,  and  may  give, 
place. 

The    same    principle    was    held    by  Saravia,   tlie 

friend   of    Hooker ;  *    also    by  Archdeacon  Francis 

Mason,  who,  in  his  Vindication  of  Anglican  Orders^ 

defends     the    validity    of  the     foreign    Reformed 

Churches   on   the   ground   of  necessity.     Whitgift, 

Hoadley,  Sutcliffe,  Ussher,  all  the  old  defenders  of 

the    Anglican    Church,    held    the    same   principle. 

Field,    whom   all  Anglicans  revere,  says    (and   the 

utmost    weight    must    be    given   to    his    deliberate 

judgment)  : 

And  who  knoweth  not  that  all  presbyters  in  case  of  necessity 
may  absolve  and  reconcile  penitents,  a  thing  in  ordinary  course 
appropriated  unto  bishops  ?  And  why  not,  by  the  same  reason, 
ordain  pres!iyters  and  deacons  in  cases  of  like  necessity?  .  ,  . 
There  is  no  reason  to  be  given  but  that,  in  case  of  necessity, 
wherein  all  bishops  were  extinguished  by  death  or,  being  fallen 
mto  heresy,  should  refuse  to  ordain  any  to  serve  God  in  his  true 
worship,  but  that  presbyters,  as  they  may  do  all  other  acts, 
whatsoever  special  challenge  bishops  in  ordinary  course  may 
make  upon  them,  might  do  this  also.  Who,  then,  dare  condemn 
these  worthy  ministers  of  God  that  were  ordained  by  presbyters, 
in  sundry  Churches  of  the  world,  at  such  times  as  bishops,  in 
those  parts  where  they  lived,  opposed  themselves  against  the 
truth  of  God  and  persecuted  such  as  professed  it  ?  Surely  the 
best  learned  in  the  Church  of  Rome  in  former  times  did  not 

*  Defens.   Tract,  de  Div.  Alin.,  c.  ii. 


THE    AUTHORITY    OF    WESLEY.  20I 

pronounce  all  ordinations  of  this  nature  to  be  void.  For  not 
only  Armachanus,  but,  as  it  appeareth  by  Alexander  of  Hales, 
many  learned  men  in  his  time  and  before  were  of  opinion  that 
in  some  cases  presbyters  may  give  orders,  .  .  .  though  to  do 
so,  not  being  urged  by  extreme  necessity,  cannot  be  excused 
from  over-great  boldness  and  presumption. 

Thus  we  see  the  plea  cf  necessity  is*a  valid  plea. 
On  that  ground  the  founders  and  defenders  of  the 
English    Church    vindicated   the     organization    of 
that  Church  and  the  orders  of  its  ministry,  as  they, 
also  did  the  Reformed   Churches  on  the  Continent. 

From  what  has  been  set  forth  to  the  effect  that  ac- 
cording to  Scripture,  the  supreme  authority,  bishops 
and  presbyters  are  of  the  same  order  and  that 
presbyters  have  therefore  inherent  right  to  ordain  ; 
that  in  the  primitive  Church  presbyters  did  exer- 
cise that  right ;  and  further,  in  cases  of  necessity, 
in  order  that  the  truth  of  God  may  not  perish 
among  any  Christian  people  and  that  they  may  not 
be  deprived  of  the  consolations  of  religion,  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  holy  sacraments — from  all  this 
testimony,  we  say,  produced  in  the  establishment 
of  these  several  propositions,  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  the  Rev.  John  Wesley  had  full  and  sufficient 
authority  for  the  ordination  of  Dr.  Coke  and  the 
sending  of  other  ordained  ministers  to  the  reli- 
giously destitute  thousands  of  North  America. 
If  this  argument  fails  in  the  case  of  John  Wesley 
there  is  not  a  Protestant  Church  in  Europe  or 
America  that  can  vindicate  its  existence.    Scripture, 


202  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

history,  reason,  and  the  Christian  consciousness  all 
combine  in  approval  of  the  act.  The  only  dis- 
cordant note  among  all  the  harmonious  voices  is 
that  of  the  Anglican  Church,  which  was  itself  the 
creature  of  necessity. 

The  reader  who  may  desire  to  pursue  the  subject 
further,  that  is,  to  find  other  precedents  for  the 
action  of  Mr.  Wesley,  may  consult  histories  of  the 
Reformed  Churches  of  Denmark  and  of  Sweden,  in 
which  Churches  the  bishops  were  called  superin- 
tendents, as  Wesley  named  Coke.  The  following 
works,  in  addition  to  the  well-known  monographs, 
will  be  of  service :  Gerdesius,  Introductio  in  Histor, 
Evangel.  Rcnovat,  tom.  iii,  page  in;  Desroches, 
Histoire  de  Dannemark,  tom.  v,  page  132  ;  Professor 
Mallet,  Histoire  de  Dannemark,  tom.  vi,  pages  367, 
368 ;  Moreri,  Dictionnaire  Historique,  tom.  ii,  page 
361.  On  Sweden  consult  ^iQsscmws,  Schondia  IIlus- 
trata,  tom.  v,  page  54. 


DOCTRINE    OF    NECESSITY.  203 


CHAPTER  XI. 
Doctrine  of  Necessity — Power  of  the  Church* 

IN  the  preceding  chapter  we  have  seen  that  a  plea 
of  genuine  necessity  must  be  in  the  nature  of 
things  a  vahd  plea  in  justification  of  ordination  by  a 
presbyter,  or  even  for  the  reinstitution  of  a  ministry 
de  novo.  From  that  conclusion  there  can  be  no  de- 
fensible dissent.  The  Church  of  God  must  have 
within  itself  the  power  of  self-perpetuation.  We 
cannot  conceive  a  possible  ground  for  guilt,  if  the 
ministry  in  any  country  were  cut  off  by  the  sword 
and  the  surviving  membership  of  the  persecuted  and 
desolated  Church  should  call  godly  men  from  among 
themselves  and  solemnly  dedicate  them  to  the  office 
of  the  ministry,  in  order  that  the  truth  of  God  should 
not  perish  among  them.  So,  also,  if  a  company  of 
Christians  were  shipwrecked  and  thrown  upon  an 
island  in  remote  latitudes,  their  duty  would  be  to 
select  qualified  men  and  appoint  them  as  pastors. 
Wherever  Christ  is,  there  is  the  Church.  If  the 
risen  Lord  is  with  his  people — and  he  assuredly  is — 
then  in  exceptional  providences  they  have  the  right, 
with  a  single  eye  to  his  glory,  to  do  that  which  in 
their  godly  judgment  is  the  best  for  the  preservation 


204  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

of  the  truth.  They  are  not  to  know  the  future  be- 
fore they  act,  for  that  belongs  alone  to  God.  Their 
duty  is  to  do  that  which  is  demanded  by  the  neces- 
sities brought  about  by  the  extraordinary  provi- 
dences which  have  hemmed  them  in. 

But  it  is  not  sufficient  that  the  principle  of  neces- 
sity be  established.  A  principle  may  be  correct ; 
the  application  of  it  to  any  particular  instance  may 
be  illogical  and  false.  We  are  not  at  liberty,  there- 
fore, to  avail  ourselves  of  any  benefit  obtainable  from 
this  concession  without  clearly  proving  that  the  case 
to  which  the  principle  is  to  be  applied  is  truly  an 
instance  of  rtal  necessity. 

The  questions  before  us,  then,  are:  Was  there  a 
real  necessity  in  the  case  of  the  Methodists  in  North 
America  for  the  ordination  of  Dr.  Coke  ?  And  did 
the  Methodists  represented  in  General  Conference 
at  Baltimore,  December,  1784,  have  the  right  to  re- 
ceive the  bishops  and  presbyters  appointed  through 
Mr.  Wesley  ? 

The  reality  of  the  necessity  becomes  apparent  at 
once  when  we  consider  the  religious  condition  of 
the  American  colonies  at  the  close  of  the  Revolu- 
tionary War.  All  the  Churches  had  suffered  se- 
verely in  organization,  in  membership,  and  in  spirit- 
ual character.  The  long-continued  conflict  which 
had  well-nigh  exhausted  the  resources  of  the  State 
had  almost  completed  the  destruction  of  ecclesias- 
tical governments.     The  Presbyterians  were  not  able 


DOCTRINE    OF   NECESSITY.  205 

to  convene  a  General  Assembly  until  1789;  the 
Baptists  and  Congregationalists  were  in  similar  con- 
dition. But  Methodism,  owing  to  its  itinerating  min- 
istry, which  traveled  constantly  through  every  prov- 
ince, emerged  from  the  war  with  few  traces  of 
hardship,  although  it  was  loyal  to  the  cause  of  the 
patriots  and  was  strongest  in  those  provinces  which 
suffered  most  in  the  war.  The  Methodists  were 
organized  and  quick  with  contagious  vitality.  They 
numbered  some  fourscore  preachers  and  fifteen 
thousand  members.  And  yet  they  were  far  from 
being  contented  with  their  ecclesiastical  state,  if 
their  anomalous  position  may  be  so  designated,  for 
they  were  a  Church  without  a  sacrament.  From 
every  part  of  the  country  arose  complaints  and 
murmurings  which  threatened  the  solidarity  of  the 
body.  In  1779  the  preachers  in  Virginia  openly  re- 
volted from  the  general  connection.  Ill-omened 
symptoms  appeared  elsewhere,  and  could  not  be 
suppressed.  The  cause  of  all  this  was  not  dissatis- 
faction with  the  character  of  the  ministry,  or  with 
the  almost  autocratic  government  of  the  Conference, 
or  with  the  doctrines  which  were  then  peculiar  to 
Methodism,  but  to  the  lack  of  authority  in  the 
preachers  to  administer  to  the  people  the  ordi- 
nances of  religion.  To  the  thousands  scattered 
through  the  colonies  these  itinerant  preachers  had 
preached  the  word  of  God  and  won  multitudes  from 

a  sinful   life  ;    upon  their  labors  Heaven  bestowed 
14 


206  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

marvelous  blessings ;  the  vitalizing  power  of  their 
spiritual  passion  for  humanity  was  quickening  the 
religiously  torpid  life  of  the  new  era  ;  but  to  no  soul 
brought  by  them  to  a  personal  knowledge  of  Jesus 
Christ  could  they  administer  the  sacrament  of  bap- 
tism or  break  the  bread  in  the  holy  communion. 
They  were  preachers,  not  ministers.  Notwithstand- 
ing the  earnest  appeals  of  Mr.  Wesley,  the  bishops 
in  England  had  persistently  refused  to  ordain  even 
one  minister  for  this  service,  and  out  of  deference  to 
the  will  of  Wesley  and  a  decent  regard  for  immemo- 
rial usage  these  preachers  refrained  from  exercising 
the  office  of  consecrated  ministers. 

From  the  Churches  about  them  no  help  could  be 
obtained — even  if  that  were  of  any  value  in  the 
judgment  of  Anglicans — owing  to  doctrinal  differ- 
ences. The  Methodists  were  Arminians ;  the  Pres- 
byterians, Congregationalists,  and  Baptists  were  Cal- 
vinists.  In  the  opinion  of  these  and  other  de- 
nominations Methodism  was  rank  heresy,  fed  by 
unrestrained  enthusiasm,  and  productive  in  its 
logical  outcome  only  of  fanatical  disorder  and  wide- 
spread ruin.  To  the  Arminian  Calvinism  was  a 
monstrous  caricature  of  the  benevolence  and  jus- 
tice of  God,  repugnant  to  Holy  Scripture  rightly 
interpreted,  and  at  war  with  human  reason.  Be- 
tween opposing  beliefs  so  strongly  emphasized  there 
could  be  but  little  sympathy.  From  neither  Pres- 
byterians  nor   Congregationalists  could   Methodist 


DOCTRINE    OF    NECESSITY.  20/ 

families  obtain  baptism  for  their  children,  unless 
one  of  the  parents  professed  their  doctrines.  The 
Baptists  were  more  exclusive.  Immersion  was  the 
one  absolute  condition  for  receiving  the  com- 
munion, and  baptism  to  children  was  as  absolutely 
forbidden.  The  Church  of  England  was  utterly 
disorganized  and  unable  to  minister  to  those  of 
her  own  communion.  Many  of  the  clergy  had 
espoused  the  cause  of  the  Tories  against  the 
American  patriots  and  had  fled  the  country. 
Everywhere  the  Church  was  involved  in  the  defeat 
of  the  English,  and  vacant  charges  in  every  colony — 
there  being  no  less  than  seventy  in  four  provinces — 
testified  to  her  helpless  and  forlorn  state.  At  the 
beginning  of  the  war  the  Episcopal  Church  in  Vir- 
ginia had  ninety-five  parishes  and  ninety-one  minis- 
ters. At  the  close  of  the  conflict  she  had  only 
seventy-two  parishes,  thirty-four  of  which  had  no 
pastors;  and  out  of  the  ninety-one  ministers  only 
twenty-eight  remained.  Among  the  churches  hav- 
ing pastors  there  was  no  miore  unity  than  there  is 
between  particles  of  sand  in  a  sand  heap.  The 
future  was  dark,  and  the  probability  that  a  new 
Episcopal  organization  would  ever  rise  on  the  ruins 
of  the  old  was  as  uncertain  as  the  possibility  of 
obtaining  Episcopal  ordination  was  doubtful.  Sub- 
sequent events  show  how  well  grounded  were  these 
doubts.  Dr.  Seabury,  who  went  to  England  to  obtain 
the  succession,  was  refused  by  the  Anglican  bishops, 


208  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

and  was  compelled  to  seek  ordination  from  non- 
juring  bishops  in  Scotland.  Afterward,  when  an- 
other effort  was  made,  a  special  act  of  Parliament 
was  required  before  the  legal  authority  could  be 
granted  for  the  consecration.  No  one  can  read 
Bishop  White's  Memoirs  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  or  his  pamphlet,  The  Case  of  the  Episcopal 
Churches  in  the  United  States  Co7isidered^  and  not 
be  impressed  with  the  almost  hopeless  condition  of 
the  Episcopal  Church,  on  account  of  the  changes 
involved  in  the  success  of  the  Revolution  and  the 
loose  opinions  concerning  episcopacy  in  the  body 
itself.  "  From  the  operation  of  these  causes,"  says 
Wilson,  in  his  memoir  of  Bishop  White,  "  the  Epis- 
copal Church,  at  the  close  of  the  Revolution,  was 
reduced  to  a  very  low  condition,  and  almost  in 
danger  of  extinction,  most  of  the  clergy  having 
died  or  removed  from  the  country  or  retired  from 
active  duty,  and  none  ordained  to  supply  their 
place,  and  her  congregations  in  most  places  broken 
up  or  dispersed.  The  danger  of  this  evil  may  be 
estimated  by  the  fact,  formerly  mentioned,  that  in 
Pennsylvania  Dr.  White  was  for  some  time  the 
only  clergyman  ;  and  in  other  States,  even  those 
in  which  the  clergy  had  been  most  numerous,  very 
few  remained.  In  addition  to  all  these  embarrass- 
ments it  was  known  that  differences  of  opinion  on 
some  important  points  existed  in  the  Church  itself, 
particularly  between    the    clergy  of   the    Eastern 


DOCTRINE    OF    NECESSITY.  209 

States  and  those  of  the  South,  which  might  lead  to 
disunion.  And  the  want  of  bishops  and  the  very 
inadequate  supply  of  clergy  prevented  any  vigorous 
and  systematic  exertion  lor  her  improvement." 
Under  such  circumstances  what  could  the  Metho- 
dists do  other  than  they  did  ?  An  ordained  min- 
istry they  were  compelled  to  have :  the  necessity 
was  imperative,  and  Wesley,  by  the  force  of  provi- 
dential events,  was  under  necessity  to  assist  these 
poor  sheep  in  the  wilderness.  They  did  not  make 
the  circumstances  of  the  situation  ;  they  did  not 
create  the  events  which  led  to  the  overthrow  of  the 
Anglican  Church  :  nor  did  they  separate  them- 
selves from  her  communion,  wilfully  breaking 
through  every  law  and  custom  in  a  fanatical,  head- 
strong spirit,  actuated  by  schismatical  and  lawless 
desires  to  set  up  for  themselves  an  independent 
organization.  Those  who  attribute  such  conduct 
and  such  motives  to  the  Methodists  of  that  forma- 
tive period  know  little  either  of  their  spirit  or  of 
their  early  history. 

Among  the  first  rules  agreed  upon  by  the  preach- 
ers, and  published  in  1773,  were  these : 

"  I.  Every  preacher  who  acts  in  connection  with 
Mr.  Wesley  and  the  brethren  who  labor  in  America 
is  strictly  to  avoid  administering  the  ordinances  of 
baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper. 

"  2.  All  the  people  among  whom  we  labor  to  be 
earnestly  exhorted  to  attend   the  Church  [that  is, 


2IO  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

Church  of  England]  and  receive  the  ordinances  there; 
but  in  a  particular  manner  to  press  the  people  in 
Maryland  and  Virginia  to  the  observance  of  this 
minute." 

At  the  Conference  held  April  28,  1779,  a  resolu- 
tion in  the  form  of  question  and  answer  was  adopted 
that  they  would  continue  to  maintain  connection 
with  the  Church  of  England  : 

'*  Qiiestion.  Shall  we  guard  against  a  separation 
from  the  Church,  directly  or  indirectly? 

"  Answer.     By  all  means." 

Again,  in  1780,  the  following  year,  among  the 
questions  propounded  in  Conference  at  Baltimore, 
April  24,  and  printed  in  the  Minutes  of  that  year, 
were  these: 

"  Quest.  12.  Shall  we  continue  in  close  connec- 
tion with  the  Church  and  press  our  people  to  a 
closer  communion  with  her? 

'' Ans.     Yes. 

**  Quest.  13.  Will  this  Conference  grant  the  privi- 
lege to  all  the  friendly  clergy  of  the  Church  of  En- 
gland, at  the  request  or  desire  of  the  people,  to 
preach  or  administer  the  ordinances  in  our  preaching 
houses  or  chapels  ? 

'' Ans.     Yes." 

In  Virginia,  where  the  Episcopal  clergy  had  lax 
opinions  concerning  episcopacy,  as  Dr.  Wilson  ob- 
serves above,  some  of  the  Methodist  preachers,  tired 
of  waiting  for  ordained  ministers  to  administer  the 


DOCTRINE    OF    NECESSITY.  211 

sacraments,  assumed,  contrary  to  the  consensus  of 
Methodism,  that  prerogative  and  began  to  admin- 
ister the  ordinances.  But  so  opposed  was  this  as- 
sumption of  the  ministerial  office  to  the  traditions 
and  beliefs  of  the  majority  that,  rather  than  recog- 
nize the  validity  of  the  act,  they  would  sever  all  con- 
nection with  them.  The  time  for  such  a  departure 
had  not  yet  come.  Necessity  there  was,  but  such  a 
necessity  as  might  be  longer  endured.  They  were 
not  willing  to  consider  even  a  pressing  need  as  a 
compelling  necessity.  Consequently  at  this  same 
Conference  in  Baltimore,  in  which  they  affirmed 
their  desire  to  remain  in  close  connection  with  the 
Church,  these  questions  were  put: 

*'  Quest.  20.  Does  this  whole  Conference  disap- 
prove the  step  our  brethren  have  taken  in  Virginia  ? 

'' Ans,     Yes. 

**  Quest.  21.  Do  we  look  upon  them  no  longer  as 
Methodists  in  connection  with  Mr.  Wesley  and  us 
till  they  come  back  ? 

"■  Ans.     Yes." 

Thus  it  is  made  manifest  that  in  yielding  to  the 
necessity  of  their  situation  the  Methodists  were  in. 
no  wise  inspired  with  schismatical  notions.  But 
what  other  course  was  open  to  them  ?  They  now 
numbered  fifteen  thousand  members  ;  an  itinerating 
ministry  which  traveled  to  the  remotest  picket  line 
on  the  frontier  kept  them  intact,  vigorous,  and  ag- 
gressive;  upon  them  the   grace   of  God   had  been 


212  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

shed  in  abundance,  and  everywhere  by  their  evan- 
gcHcal  teachings  and  holy  lives  they  were  leavening 
society.  By  a  combination  of  events  the  Episcopal 
Church,  to  which  they  had  been  attached,  was  swept 
from  its  foundations.  They  maintained  their  or- 
ganization. But  were  they  now  to  disband  and 
break  into  isolated  fragments  because  the  Bishop  of 
London  refused  to  ordain  a  clergyman  ?  To  con- 
tinue as  they  were,  a  Church  without  a  ministry, 
was  not  possible.  In  1789  the  framers  of  the 
Prayer  Book  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
recognized  in  the  Preface  of  that  book  the  free  state 
in  which  all  the  Churches  were  left  by  the  result  of 
the  Revolution  : 

''  When  in  the  course  of  divine  Providence  these 
American  States  became  independent  with  respect 
to  civil  government  their  ecclesiastical  independ- 
ence was  necessarily  included,  and  the  different  re- 
ligious denominations  of  Christians  in  these  States 
were  left  at  full  and  equal  liberty  to  model  and 
organize  their  respective  Churches  and  forms  of  wor- 
ship and  discipline  in  such  manner  as  they  might 
judge  most  convenient  for  their  future  prosperity, 
consistently  with  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  their 
country." 

The  Methodists  were  therefore  as  free  as  any. 
Because  they  were  free,  and  were  not  at  liberty 
to  disregard  the  providential  leadings  in  their 
history,  they  did  not  choose  to  become  as  chaff  be- 


DOCTRINE    OF   NECESSITY.  213 

fore  the  wind.  They  had  the  divine  right  to  exist. 
But  they  could  not  exist  without  an  ordained  minis- 
try. That  they  must  have.  The  necessity  was 
upon  them.  They  had  a  right  to  a  ministry.  The 
hierarchy  in  England  refused  to  heed  the  appeals 
for  such  a  ministry.  Wesley  as  a  presbyter  had  the 
power  to  ordain  ;  he,  under  God,  was  the  leader  of 
the  great  awakening  ;  him  the  people  and  preachers 
called;  and  he,  having  long  refused,  yielded  to  the 
absolute  necessity  of  the  case.  He  recognized  that 
they  were  between  the  mountains  and  the  sea  and 
that  they  must  cross  over  or  perish. 

It  is  true  that  in  exercising  his  New  Testament 
right  he  violated  ecclesiastical  canons.  But  not  to 
violate  Church  canons  when  they  stand  in  the  way  of 
the  very  purpose  for  which  the  Church  was  organ- 
ized is  to  be  guilty  of  a  greater  wrong  than  the  viola- 
tion of  all  the  canons  that  have  ever  been  enacted. 
It  is  to  destroy  the  Church  itself  by  destroying  the 
reason  for  its  existence,  the  salvation  of  men.  Had 
Wesley  refused  to  ordain  a  ministry  for  the  Metho- 
dists in  their  necessity — and  nothing  could  have 
been  added  that  would  have  made  their  case  more 
necessitous — he  would  have  been  responsible  for 
all  the  evils  that  would  have  followed.  Nothing  could 
have  justified  him  at  the  bar  of  history.  Wisdom, 
however,  is  justified  ofher  children,  and  the  history  of 
Episcopal  Methodism  is  the  justification  of  Wesley. 

The    authority  of  the   Methodists  assembled   at 


2  14  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

Baltimore  to  call  and  to  receive  the  ministers  ap- 
pointed by  Mr.  Wesley  is  involved  in  the  question 
of  necessity.  But  we  may  consider  this  question,  in 
briefest  manner,  as  one  separate  and  distinct. 

As  a  body  of  Christians  they  had,  under  the 
peculiar  circumstances  of  their  condition,  a  divine 
right  to  appoint  suitable  persons  from  among  them- 
selves to  the  office  and  work  of  the  Christian  minis- 
try or  to  accept  ministers  ordained  by  Mr.  Wesley. 
Illustrations  of  this  principle  may  be  given  in  abun- 
dance from  the  history  of  the  Churches  of  the  Refor- 
mation. We  see  it  advocated  by  eminent  author- 
ities in  the  Church  of  England,  and  the  reader  of 
the  preceding  pages  will  recall  the  teachings  of  Bur- 
net, Field,  Saravia,  and  Hooker.  By  those  who  re- 
gard all  authority  in  the  Church  as  coming  to  it  from 
without,  that  is,  from  a  ministry  constituting  an 
essentially  distinct  body  from  and  independent  of 
the  Church,  this  principle  will  be  of  necessity  de- 
nied ;  but  it  cannot  be  rejected  by  those  who  con- 
ceive the  Church  as  deriving  authority,  not  only  by 
external  means,  by  grants  and  privileges  traceable 
to  apostolic  acts  and  precedents,  but  also  by  virtue 
of  the  divine  life  within. 

The  Church  of  God,  according  to  the  ideal  pre- 
sented to  us  in  the  New  Testament,  is  not  an  ag- 
glomeration of  individuals,  a  coterie,  a  club,  society, 
or  propaganda  controlled  by  purely  human  ideas, 
having   for   its   main   object   ethical    culture,  social 


DOCTRINE    OF   NECESSITY.  215 

improvement,  the  advancement,  in  a  word,  of  what 
is  called  civilization,  however  praiseworthy  such 
objects  might  be.  It  is  not  organized  politics.  It 
is  organized  religion.  It  is  not  a  lifeless,  soulless 
mass  operative  only  as  it  is  moved  upon  by  external 
forces.  It  is  a  living  organism  animated  by  the 
Spirit  of  the  living  God,  who  works  in  it  and  through 
it  for  the  realizatioH  of  the  divine  purpose  in  human 
history.  It  is  not  a  lawless  aggregation  of  atoms 
incapable  of  unity  of  action  for  a  given  end.  It  is 
the  ideal  solidarity.  This  is  the  apostolic  idea  in 
I  Cor.  xii,  where  the  local  Church  is  compared  to 
the  human  body,  composed  of  many  members,  each 
having  its  own  function  relative  to  the  purpose  of 
the  whole  organism,  but  animated  by  the  one  con- 
scious, purposeful  spirit  within.  The  mission  of  the 
Church  is  the  spiritual  regeneration  of  humanity. 
This  is  its  sole  reason  in  history — the  bringing  by 
the  force  of  divine  truth  of  all  world  powers,  whether 
moral  or  social,  political  or  intellectual,  into  right 
relations  with  God  as  he  has  revealed  himself  in 
Jesus  Christ,  the  climax  of  God's  revealing  power. 
To  this  end  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  interpreter  of 
Jesus  Christ,  dwells  in  the  Church.  He  dwells  there 
because  he  dwells  in  the  heart  of  every  true  mem- 
ber of  the  Church.  The  Spirit  touches  human 
spirit  and  by  contact  with  it  imparts  to  it  his  own 
divine  quality  of  life,  thus  making  it  holy.  To  the 
degree  that  the  individual  membership  is  sanctified 


2l6  THE    HISTORIC    EriSCOl'ATE. 

by  the  Spirit  and  is  led  by  liim  and  by  personal 
abandonment  of  self  into  the  light  of  the  written 
word,  that  safeguard  against  fanaticism,  to  that  de- 
gree is  the  Church  the  organized  force  through 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  quickens  humanity  and  im- 
parts to  it  the  life  of  God. 

Further,  in  a  living  body  there  must  inhere  the 
power  of  adjustment  to  changing  environments. 
An  organism  which  is  not  adaptable  to  varying  con- 
ditions is  limited  to  one  place,  to  one  sort  of  condi- 
tions which  do  not  change ;  for,  if  there  is  any  change, 
the  unchangeable,  unadjustable  organism  is  immedi- 
ately thrown  out  of  relation  to  its  environments,  and 
it  dies.  There  is  lack  of  correspondence  between  in- 
ternal and  external  conditions.  Therefore  in  order 
to  accomplish  its  mission  the  Church  also,  whether 
we  consider  it  universally  or  locally,  must  be  able  to 
adjust  itself  to  the  ever-changing  conditions  and 
necessities  of  each  succeeding  age.  Whatever  will 
enable  it  to  achieve  the  end  of  its  existence,  the 
purpose  for  which  it  was  organized,  it  is  its  divine 
right  and  its  paramount  duty  to  perform.  Of  all 
this  the  Church  has  been  conscious  from  the  begin- 
ning. It  knows  that  it  is  animated  by  a  divine  life  ;  it 
knows  that  there  is  in  it  a  guiding  power  not  wholly 
its  own,  and  that  only  apostasy  from  the  truth  in 
thought  or  life  will  deprive  it  of  the  Spirit  promised 
and  given  by  the  Lord  Jesus.  In  the  strength  of  this 
consciousness  it  teaches  that  if  the  majority  of  the 


DOCTRINE    OF    NECESSITY.  2  1/ 

Church  should  fall  from  the  faith  the  Church  would 
still  be  perfect  in  the  minority,  as  Israel  fell  and  yet 
a  remnant  was  preserved. 

At  the  formal  organization  of  the  Church  at 
Pentecost  there  was  given  it  all  needful  powers  for 
the  successful  prosecution  of  its  mission  to  the  end 
of  time.     "  Now  there  are  diversities  of  gifts,"  says 

the  apostle,  in  i  Cor.  xii,  "but  the  same  Spirit And 

there  are  diversities  of  operations,  but  it  is  the  same 
God  which  worketh  all  in  all.  But  the  manifesta- 
tion of  the  Spirit  is  given  to  every  man  to  profit 
withal.  For  to  one  is  given  by  the  Spirit  the  word  of 
wisdom  ;  to  another  the  word  of  knowledge  by  the 
same  Spirit ;  to  another  faith  by  the  same  Spirit ;  to 
another  the  gifts  of  healing  by  the  same  Spirit ; 
to  another  the  working  of  miracles;  to  another 
prophecy ;  to  another  discerning  of  spirits ;  to 
another  divers  kinds  of  tongues  ;  to  another  the 
interpretation  of  tongues  :  but  all  these  worketh  that 
one  and  the  selfsame  Spirit,  dividing  to  every  man 
severally  as  he  will."  But,  in  addition  to  these 
powers  which  the  ascended  Lord  sent  down  to  his 
Church,  we  find  another  order  of  gifts  somewhat 
different  in  their  nature :  "  And  God  hath  set  some 
in  the  church,  first  apostles,  secondarily  prophets, 
thirdly  teachers,  after  that  miracles,  then  gifts  of 
healings,  helps,  governments,  diversities  of  tongues." 
And  in  Eph.  iv  he  writes,  "  And  he  gave  some, 
apostles ;  and  some,  prophets ;  and  some,  evangel- 


2l8  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOPATE. 

ists ;  and  some,  pastors  and  teachers ;  for  the  per- 
fecting of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of  the  ministry, 
for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ." 

Here,  then,  we  see  the  Church  endowed  with  cer- 
tain gifts  or  powers,  some  temporary,  some  perpetual. 
These  endowments  belong  solely  to  no  age  or  par- 
ticular local  Church  ;  but,  as  the  promise  of  Christ  to 
be  with  his  disciples  was  not  for  them  only,  but  also 
for  all  who  should  truly  succeed  them  in  the  same 
ministry,  so  these  powers,  which  are  for  the  per- 
petuation of  the  Church,  were  not  confined  to  the 
Churches  in  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  Corinth,  Ephesus, 
or  Thessalonica,  but  come  down  to  all  Churches 
that  succeed  them  in  the  same  faith  to  the  end  of 
time,  whether  the  national  Church  of  England,  or 
Presbyterian,  or  Baptist,  or  Methodist.  Doctrine, 
and  not  name,  is  the  apostolic  touchstone  of  gen- 
uine succession. 

The  source  of  authority,  then,  is  the  Church.  It  did 
not,  it  is  true,  originate  the  ministry,  nor  did  the  min- 
istry originate  itself.  But  at  no  time  was  that  a 
lawful  ministry  which  was  in  opposition  to  the  voice 
of  the  Church.  Out  of  itself,  quickened  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  it  calls  those  who  are  quickened,  because  be- 
longing to  it  vitally,  to  minister  in  the  things  of  the 
Spirit.  This  is  the  outward  call  which  corresponds 
to  the  inward  call,  and  without  that  outward  call  no 
one  has  a  right  to  the  Christian  ministry.  This  call 
the  Methodists,  who  were  as  truly  a  Christian  people 


DOCTRINE    OF   NECESSITY.  2ig 

organized  for  the  work  of  redemption  as  was  the 
Church  of  England,  gave  to  John  Wesley,  and  he, 
recognizing  under  the  providential  circumstances  the 
voice  of  God  in  the  voice  of  the  Church,  obeyed  the 
summons.  They  had  the  right  to  call  him.  Every 
argument  against  their  right  under  the  circumstances 
is  an  argument  against  the  origin  of  every  Church 
of  the  Reformation.  Always,  in  all  ages  of  the 
Church  until  Rome  usurped  the  power,  the  people 
had  the  right,  and  exercised  the  right,  to  call  minis- 
ters. "  All  power  and  grace,"  says  Firmilian  in  his 
epistle  to  Cyprian  (see  Ante-Nicene  Library,  Amer- 
ican edition,  p.  392),  "  are  established  in  the  Church, 
where  the  elders  preside,  who  possess  the  power  both 
of  baptizing  and  of  imposition  of  hands  and  of  or- 
daining." **  The  bishop  shall  be  chosen,"  writes 
Cyprian  {ibid.,  p.  371),  "  in  the  presence  of  the  people 
Avho  have  most  fully  known  the  life  of  each  one  as 
respects  his  habitual  conduct.  And  this  also  we  see 
was  done  by  you  in  the  ordination  of  our  colleague 
Sabinus,  so  that  by  the  suffrage  of  the  whole  broth- 
erhood, and  by  the  sentence  of  the  bishops  who  had 
assembled  in  their  presence  and  who  had  written 
letters  to  you  concerning  him,  the  episcopate  was 
conferred  upon  him."  Augustine  constantly  affirms 
that  the  power  of  the  keys  resides  in  the  Church, 
the  key  of  ordination  and  the  key  of  jurisdiction. 
All  ancient  authorities  agree  to  the  same.  A  writer 
in  \.hQ  British  Quarterly  Review  (January,  1877),  in  a 


220  THE    HISTORIC    EPISCOrATE. 

learned  article  on  **  Priesthood  in  the  Light  of  the 
New  Testament,"  quotes  an  important  statement 
from  an  eminent  authority  in  harmony  with  the  view 
here  presented.  '*  Tostatus,  Bishop  of  Avila,"  he 
notes,  "in  his  great  commentary,  says:  *  For  the 
power  of  a  prelate  does  not  take  its  origin  from  it- 
self, but  from  the  Church,  by  means  of  the  election 
it  makes  of  him.  The  Church  that  chose  him  gives 
him  that  jurisdiction;  but  as  for  the  Church,  it  re- 
ceives it  from  nobody  after  its  having  once  received 
it  from  Jesus  Christ.  The  Church  has  the  keys 
originally  and  virtually,  and  whenever  she  gives 
them  to  a  prelate  she  does  not  give  them  to  him 
after  the  manner  that  she  has  them,  to  wit,  origin- 
ally and  virtually,  but  she  gives  them  to  him  only 
as  to  use.'  " 

To  sum  up  the  foregoing :  We  see  that  the 
Methodists  of  the  American  colonies  were  hemmed 
in  by  necessity;  that  it  was  a  real  necessity;  that,  it 
being  a  real  necessity,  there  was  no  law  invalidating 
the  ordination  of  Dr.  Coke  by  the  Rev.  John  Wes- 
ley, who,  as  a  presbyter  in  the  Church,  had  an  in- 
herent right  to  ordain.  We  see  that  a  body  of 
Christians,  because  they  are  such,  have  the  right  to 
a  ministry,  and  that  if  this  right  is  denied  them  by 
the  ordinary  channels  for  the  transmission  of  author- 
ity they  have  the  God-given  right  among  themselves 
to  exercise  that  authority.  This  was  the  right  in- 
sisted upon  by  the  founders  of  the  Anglican  Church. 


DOCTRINE    OF   NECESSITY.  221 

Jewel,  it  will  be  remembered,  in  writing  against  the 
Romanist  Harding,'  affirmed  the  same  doctrine 
which  we  have  laid  down  :  "  If  none  of  those  minis- 
ters, nor  of  us,  were  alive,  yet  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land would  not  flee  to  Louvain  for  Roman  orders, 
for  the  Church  would  have  power  to  institute  its  own 
orders,  as  Tertullian  saith,  '  And  we,  being  laymen, 
are  we  not  priests  ?  '  '* 

Thus  do  we  complete  the  argument  for  the  scrip- 
tural and  historical  validity  of  Methodist  orders. 
They,  it  will  be  seen,  rest  on  the  same  foundation  as 
do  the  orders  of  the  Church  of  England  or  its  off- 
shoot, the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and  every 
argument  in  defense  of  the  episcopate  in  those 
Churches  is  equally  valid  in  defense  of  the  historic 

episcopate  in  Episcopal  Methodism. 
15 


INDEX. 


Act  of  royal  supremacy,  26,  29,  33, 

Anglican  arguments  against  Methodist 
orders,  131,  132. 

Anglican  Church,  relation  of,  to  other 
Churches,  14. 

Answers  of  English  Reformers  to  certain 
questions,  80. 

Apostolic  succession  in  Church  of  Eng- 
land impossible,  107,  112,  120,  121. 

Article,  the  twenty-third,  Burnet's  note 
on,  86. 

Articles,  the  early,  bishops  who  adopted, 
84. 

Barlow,  William,  position  of,  in  Parker's 

consecration,  60. 
not  an  ordained  bishop,  63-65,  68. 
Bishops,  no  record  of,  in  early  English 

Church,  182. 
Bradford  on  succession,  92. 
Burnet  on  doctrine  of  necessity,  195, 196. 
Burnet's  defense  of  the  royal  supremacy, 

28. 

Character  of  Wesley,  150,  151. 
Church  at  Alexandria,  193. 

nature  of,  214,  218. 

power  of,  219-221. 

source  of,  authority,  218. 
Clement  of  Rome,  17. 
Coke,  Dr.,  ordination  of,  156. 
Coke's  reply  to  Wesley,  165. 
Consecration  of  Matthew  Parker,  37. 

denied,  34,  42,  43. 

examination  of,  proof  of,  38,  41,  49. 
Controversy  on  Church  government, new 

epoch  in,  9=5,  96. 
Conversation  between  Coke  and  Wesley, 

164. 
Cox,  letter  of,  to  Peter  Martyr,  85. 
Cummins,  Dr.,  deposition  of,  115. 


Cyprian  on  relation  of  heretics  to  the 
Church,  113. 

Decrees  of  Council  of  Trent,  85. 
Defense  of  Barlow  by  Francis  Mason,  67, 

of  the  royal  supremacy,  28. 
Deposition  of  Roman  bishops,  30. 
Didache,  testimony  of,  18. 
Doctrine     of    apostolic     succession    in 
Church  of  Rome,  108, 109,  119,  120. 

in  Church  of  England,  107,  112,  120, 
121. 

of  necessity,  194. 

Edward's,  King,  Ordinal,  71, 
Elizabeth,  Queen,  beliefs  of,  22. 

head  of  the  Church,  28. 
Episcopal     Church,    condition     of,     in 

American  colonies,  207-209. 
Erasmus,  a  Greek  bishop,  140. 

Field  on  necessity,  200. 
on  ordination  by  presbyters,  99. 

Foreign  churches  recognized  by  Church 
of  England,  105,  106. 

Francis  Mason  on  ordination  by  pres- 
byters, 99. 

Fulke's   description   of  Roman   orders, 
117. 

Gieseler,  historical  references  of,  90. 
Grindal,  letter  of,  89. 

Haddan's  defense  of  supply  clause,  56. 

Hallam    on    recognition    of    Reformed 
Churches,  106. 

Historic  episcopate,  what  it    involves, 
15,  i6._ 
basis  of,  in  Church  of  England,  20. 
equally  good  in  Episcopal  Methodism, 
221. 

Historical  authority  to  Wesley's  ordina- 
tion of  Dr.  Coke,  189-191. 


224 


INDEX. 


Historical  succession,  evidence  against, 

184-186. 
Hooker  on  necessity,  199. 
Hooker  on  ordination  by  presbyters,  98. 
Hooper  repudiates  succession,  93. 

Important  questions,  52. 

Impossibility  of  succession  in  Church  of 

England,  107,  112,  120,  121. 
Irenaeus,  testimony  of,  17. 

James  I,  state  of  the  times  of,  39. 
Jerome,  testimony  of,  18. 
Jewel,  letter  of,  to  BuUinger,  89. 

to  Simler,  117. 
Jewel's    Apology    of  the    Church    0/ 
England^  93. 

King  Edward's  Ordinal,  61. 

King's,  Lord,  Primitive  Church,  158. 

Lambert  on  bishops,  90. 

Lambeth  conditions  of  Church  union,  15. 

register,  36,  45,  46. 
Letters  of  ordination,  167. 

to  American  preachers,  168. 

Methodism  not  isolated  from  the  past, 
136,  137. 

Necessity,  doctrine  of,  194. 

application  of  the  principle  of,  204. 
explained  by  Burnet,  195,  196. 

Order,  power  of,  explained,  109. 
Orders,  in  Anglican  Church,  72,  77,  78. 

Methodist,  arguments  against  validity 
of,  130,  131. 

Methodist,  basis  of,  181. 
Ordination  by  Erasmus  useless,  154. 

of  Dr.  Coke,  156. 

of  Wesley  by  a  Greek  bishop,  139. 

Parallel  between  English  Reformers  and 
founders  of  Methodism,  i33-i35- 

Parkhurst,  letter  of,  to  Bullinger,  85. 

Peters,  Samuel  A.,  his  testimony,  142, 
147,  148. 

Power  of  the  Church,  203. 

Pusey's  Eirenicon^  note  on,  197. 


Queen  Elizabeth,  beliefs  of,  22. 
head  of  the  Church  of  England,  28. 

Rainolde's  reply  to  Bancroft,  97. 

Reformed  Episcopal  Church,  organiza- 
tion of,  114. 

Relation  of  Methodism  to  Church  of 
England,  209-211. 

Reply  to  Anglican  objections,  171- 
176. 

Riddle,  Christian  Antiquities^  note, 
18. 

Roman  pontifical,  74. 

Royal  commission  for  Parker's  conse- 
cration, 90,  91. 

Rymer's  collections,  47. 

Scory,     iDr.,    episcopal     character     of, 

69. 
Scripture  authority  for  Wesley's  ordina- 
tion of  Coke,  186-189. 
Succession  conceded   by   Anglicans   to 
Church  of  Rome,  108. 

doctrine   of,  in  Church   of   England, 
108,  109,  119,  120. 

historical  evidence  against,  184-186. 

impossible,  107,  112,  120,  121. 

in  Church  of  England,  statement  of, 
by  Francis  Mason,  122. 

not  with  Rome,  183. 

repudiated  by  reformers,  94,  96,  97, 
123,  124. 

Teaching  of  the  English  Articles,  82. 
Testimony,       Peters's,       analysis       of, 

148. 
Toplady's,    Augustus,    charge    against 

Wesley,  142. 
Two    orders   in   Anglican   Church,  77, 

78. 
Tyndale,  views  of,  8i. 

Wesley's  appeals,  186. 

ordination  by  the  Greek  bishop  Eras- 
mus, 139. 
ordination  of  X>x.  Coke,  169,  170. 
views  of  Church  polity,  150. 
Whitaker  on  purity  of  bishops  and  pres- 
byters, 100. 
repudiates  Roman  orders,  118. 

Zurich  Letters^  50,  51,  103. 


Date  Due 

\a     '^^'     '.'' 

.'l|Hi,"""iii  •%, 

. 

Oft^rrw* 

f) 

28. 


